Abhortion for the abolition of abortion
The Index Print

Objection · No. 16 · Religious

“Reasonable Christians can disagree on strategy; calling pro-life incrementalism 'sin' is uncharitable and divisive. It is prudence, not disobedience.”

A pro-life incrementalist argument, and one we are often asked to answer. Below: the steel-manned version of the claim, the abolitionist response, discussion questions, and the sources behind both.

Religious Defensive · responds to an objection

Length2 min read CategoryReligious References0 cited SourcePro-life incrementalism
Argument No. 16 of 19 All arguments, indexed
The strongest version of this argument A pro-life incrementalist argument

Many godly, sincere believers pursue incremental protections out of genuine love for the unborn and a desire to save lives. Wisdom and prudence are biblical virtues, and treating a strategic disagreement as sin risks pride, division, and slander against faithful brothers and sisters.

Steel-manned in our own words from the strongest public versions of this claim.

§ 1 The response

The talk's argument is not that every incrementalist is insincere, but that authoring or endorsing laws which license some killing is disobedience regardless of motive. Scripture defines sin to include knowing the right and not doing it (Jas. 4:17) and any action not proceeding from faith (Rom. 14:23); the abolitionist claim is that incrementalism proceeds from fear of man (Prov. 29:25) and a lack of faith that obedience 'will work,' and that consensus-driven partial obedience is what God called rebellion in Saul (1 Sam. 15). Charity toward persons is compatible with naming the policy as sin — indeed love requires warning brothers away from what invites God's judgment. (Abolitionists should still guard against pride and slander, holding the argument, not contempt for people.)

§ 2 Discussion questions

  1. Can an action be sin even when the person doing it is sincere and well-meaning?
  2. Does 'whatever is not from faith is sin' (Rom. 14:23) bear on a strategy driven by 'the culture isn't ready'?
  3. How do we name a policy as sin without contempt for the people who hold it?
Source transcript Drawn from The Sin of Pro-Life Incrementalism (T. Russell Hunter) — The central thesis: 'the sin of pro-life incrementalism' — responding to those who said calling it sin goes too far.

§ 3 References

The case here rests on the cited scriptures; see Related below.