Abhortion for the abolition of abortion
The Index Print

Objection · No. 13 · Scriptural

“A bill that protects some children now is better than a bill that protects none and fails. Saving some babies is a moral good we shouldn't sacrifice for an all-or-nothing purity.”

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.

Scriptural Defensive · responds to an objection

Length2 min read CategoryScriptural References2 cited SourcePro-life incrementalism
Argument No. 13 of 19 All arguments, indexed
The strongest version of this argument A pro-life incrementalist argument

If an abolition bill cannot pass but a heartbeat bill can, the incremental bill demonstrably prevents some abortions that would otherwise occur. Refusing any measure that isn't total can leave more children dead in practice. Scripture praises saving life, and prudence counts real lives saved, not rhetorical consistency.

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

§ 1 The response

Abolitionists distinguish tolerating an imperfect legal situation from authoring injustice. The objection assumes the choice is 'save some vs. save none,' but an incremental bill does not merely fail to protect some children — it affirmatively writes into law that killing certain children (before a heartbeat, without pain, etc.) is permitted. That is doing evil that good may come (Rom. 3:8) and legislating partiality (Deut. 16:19; Lev. 19:15), which God forbids regardless of outcome. The goal, they argue, is to establish justice (Deut. 16:20), and you may not codify some injustice as the means. One can constantly demand total abolition (and, in the meantime, minister to mothers and children by every lawful non-legislative means) without signing a bill that licenses any killing.

§ 2 Discussion questions

  1. Is the real choice 'save some vs. save none,' or 'demand justice vs. legally license some killing'?
  2. Does an incremental bill merely fail to protect some children, or does it affirmatively authorize their killing?
  3. Can we ever do a smaller evil (legalize some abortion) so that a good (fewer abortions) may come?
Source transcript Drawn from The Sin of Pro-Life Incrementalism (T. Russell Hunter) — 'You might save a baby with an ultrasound bill, but to write and pass it you have to write injustice.'

§ 3 References

Abortion Trends Before and After Dobbs — national totals rose to ~1.14M in 2024, highest in over a decade
KFF · KFF
Supports: national abortion totals rose post-Dobbs — abolitionists cite this against the 'saves lives' premise
data analysis
#WeCount — monthly abortion average rose ~80k(2022)→88k(2023)→95k(2024); 1.14M total 2024
Society of Family Planning · #WeCount
Supports: monthly averages rose year over year 2022–2024
data