Incrementalism, a strategy of taking little steps forward to achieve a bigger feat, is a common tactic used when a task is deemed too large to handle all at once.
Finding a way to inch towards the goal can be heroic and honorable. Brave men and women throughout time have used incremental action as a way to make a difference in the lives of others.
During the Lincoln Administration people risked their lives and died for freedom, just as they do now. Harriet Tubman was a prime example of this.
Harriet was a determined and fearless woman. She traveled back and forth thousands of miles, mostly on foot, from Canada to the Carolina’s to rescue people from the bondage of slavery.
Sometimes Harriet would rescue a group of people, sometimes only one. She no doubt knew that she could not end slavery this way. Her work was good, it was admirable, and unmatched by many. She was willing to lay down her life for her friends and she proved it by her action.
Her work was an incremental step to saving lives. As she journeyed north, Harriet knew many left behind would be brutally tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered before she could get to them. She knew her efforts would not save them all.
Hoosiers for Life also uses incremental action when we visit abortion facilities every week. We gather our things the night before, and, as the next day begins, we have hope that women will change their minds…and some do. But not all of them.
We know before we get there that babies are going to die that day.
As much as we would like to stop abortion in this way, we can’t. However, the incremental action undertaken at the clinic is one of the most humbling acts of servant-hood a person can do for the preborn. Even if we were able to stop one clinic in this way from killing children, they would be dying legally somewhere else.
Incrementalism is not an enemy of the pro-life movement. In all honesty, the ending of abortion in Indiana is incremental. It will not stop the atrocity nationwide or even make a dent in what happens within the sphere of our world.
We support incremental action except with legislation that regulates the murder of babies.
Incremental action and incremental legislation is NOT the same thing!
While they get thrown into the same category, they are very different. Incremental legislation tells a woman what she needs to do in order to have an abortion, and it also gives our legislators political cover while not really fighting for the rights of human beings. Its proper name is “regulation legislation.”
These kinds of laws simply state that if you meet a certain requirement, you can then kill the baby. Pro-lifers are told these are just incremental steps taken to meet the end goal. If this is the case, we are looking at a thousand year plan to end abortion.
We have already allowed over 60 million babies to be murdered. That’s three generations of people who will never be known. There is no time to use these kinds of laws. We are well out of time!
Current regulatory laws that “make abortion harder” are not ending the slaughter of babies. There is always a loophole; there is always an avenue that keeps the abortion industry thumping along.
Proposing laws like, “If the abortion clinic is sanitary…you can kill the baby” is not honorable when fighting for the lives of babies in the womb. This is NOT an “incremental action.” This is rather an incremental legislation that regulates murder!
These pieces of legislation are not to be commended, nor do they deserve the same respect as Harriet trekking back and forth thousands of miles or individuals pleading for the lives of the unborn at abortion facilities.
Thousands of pro-lifers throw their support behind these kinds of bills every year and while the number of abortions appears to be going down slightly, the up-rise of chemical abortions are not documented. Abortions have not truly declined; murder has become easier and more convenient since the numbers are hidden. Taking Plan B into account would show the numbers of abortions have in fact gone up, but, since no one counts how many women kill their babies this way, we just can’t put a digit on it.
Somewhere throughout history the pro-life movement conceded its moral stance against abortion and began compromising. We do not regulate rape, robbery, battery, and other injustices against human life, why in the world do we regulate the murder of tiny children?
Harriet did not compromise her moral standing when she liberated slaves. Nothing she did ever said slavery was ok under some circumstances. We do not compromise on the right to unborn babies' lives when we save babies at the murder mill. But, our "incremental laws" compromise on the baby's right to life and on murder.
Our goal should not be "fewer and safer abortions." This translates to: murder is ok sometimes.
Our goal should be "abortion is illegal." This translates to: murder is never ok.
Unborn babies are not protected under current Indiana law.
Their mothers have the right to kill them, if they jump through the right hoops.
It is time to do the right thing. The time for compromising is over!
While standing at the abortion clinic we do not and would not tell the mothers, "If you just spare this child you are carrying, we will agree to let you kill your children you have at home." We do not and would not tell the abortionist, “If you just spare one child today, we will let you kill the other ten scheduled.” We would say, "You cannot murder any of those babies."
Let's take a morally righteous incremental step and lawfully give all Hoosier babies protection at conception.
To know more about Hoosiers for Life and Representative Nisly’s Protection at Conception Bill, visit www.hoosiers4life.com or call 260-302-LIFE