Abolitionism vs Pro-Life

[Foxtrot]

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

I am strongly moving toward the abolitionist side of the spectrum.

Any thoughts?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

I am strongly moving toward the abolitionist side of the spectrum.

Any thoughts?

IMO, yes, provided it is more likely pass.

First of all I’m not familiar with the bill and the politics around it, but I think we can agree a bill to prevent all abortions is unlikely to pass at this time. So wouldn’t the moral choice be to make the improvements that are practical? Make progress towards the overall goal of protecting all babies by protecting more than before?

For example, various restrictions on things such as like “late term”, “gender selective”, and “partial birth”, etc have each saved a number of babies and together add up to a meaningful number. Over the past decade or two there has been a reduction and quite possibly the number week get close to zero in my lifetime.

 

[powerofk]

It is morally acceptable. Even in the abolitionist movement, there were debates on how best to move forward. Some felt a gradual approach would work, some wanted full abolition now. In fact, Lincoln himself was originally in favor of a more gradual approach (stopping the spread of slavery). It wasn’t until the middle of the Civil War that full emancipation was thought to be prudent (and primarily to help win the war, btw). Just think of it this way - PP wants NO restrictions on abortions, EVER. Would they have gone out of their way to temporarily block passage of TX’s version of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act if they didn’t think that the intent was to nickle and dime away “abortion ‘rights’” until there were no more abortions? Of course not.

One of the stated goals of the pro-life movement is to make abortion something that never ever happens for any reason. And of course, there is more to the pro-life movement than just being against abortion, as there are so many different threats on the dignity of life in the US that we have to take a multi-pronged approach. Why? Because if people can’t see the dignity in people that have been born (especially those on the sidelines of society - people with disabilities, the homeless, people who are dying), they won’t see dignity in the unborn - and vice versa. If people can’t see the dignity in themselves, they won’t see the dignity in the babies they are carrying - and vice versa. If we are to be pro-life, we must be authentically pro-life. Otherwise, we get lambasted with all different accusations, including (and yes, I’ve heard this one before) “You are against abortions so that you can send more people to war.” Seriously. I’ve heard it. Be pro-life - and don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If even one baby can be saved by a piece of pro-life legislation, it’s a good thing. We must not cut off our noses to spite our faces, just because something’s not perfect. If we do that, we’ve accepted the status quo.

 

[dmar198]

Is it morally acceptable to vote for a bill that only protects 2 percent of babies from abortion, like the pain capable act, as opposed to supporting a bill that would protect all babies?

Why not support both?

If a law said “You may not kill Jamaicans,” and another law said “You may not kill anyone,” I would want to vote for both because both are true. If only the first law passed, I would say that’s a partial good, and we still need to work on passing the more general law.

I think the same thing applies to abortion. If the bill says you may not kill pain-capable children, that seems like a true statement, and therefore we should vote for it. And we should continue to try to pass the even broader law that you may not kill any children, because that’s true too. Does that make sense?