---
title: "“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.”"
description: "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."
type: "argument"
id: "def-some-justice-better"
category: "Scriptural"
mode: "Defensive"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/arguments/def-some-justice-better.html"
---

# “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.”

**Category:** Scriptural · **Mode:** Defensive · responds to an objection

## The objection

**The claim:**

> "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._

### The strongest version of this 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.

## 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.

## 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.'.

## References

- [Abortion Trends Before and After Dobbs — national totals rose to ~1.14M in 2024, highest in over a decade](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-trends-before-and-after-dobbs/) _(data analysis)_
  KFF · KFF
  **Supports:** national abortion totals rose post-Dobbs — abolitionists cite this against the 'saves lives' premise
- [#WeCount — monthly abortion average rose ~80k(2022)→88k(2023)→95k(2024); 1.14M total 2024](https://societyfp.org/research/wecount/wecount-december-2024-data/) _(data)_
  Society of Family Planning · #WeCount
  **Supports:** monthly averages rose year over year 2022–2024

## Related

**Related scriptures:**

- [Deuteronomy 16:20](../scripture/deuteronomy-16-20.md)
- [Deuteronomy 16:19](../scripture/deuteronomy-16-19.md)
- [Leviticus 19:15](../scripture/leviticus-19-15.md)
- [Romans 14:23](../scripture/romans-14-23.md)
- [Isaiah 10:1-2](../scripture/isaiah-10-1-2.md)

**Related arguments:**

- [God commands 'justice, and only justice' — not partial or deferred justice](arg-justice-only.md)
- [“Bills that ban abortion at a heartbeat, at pain-capability, or after an ultrasound…”](def-milestone-bills.md)
- [Immediatism — dealing with sin fully and now — is the biblical pattern; gradual toleration is not](arg-immediatism-biblical.md)