Everyone knows that you can’t turn a ship on a dime. To adjust course, you gradually steer in the direction you want to go and, over time, the ship will change directions.

In many ways, this also applies to culture. No one expects to change culture overnight. It takes time.

But for the pro-life movement, we have substituted “taking our time” for something called incrementalism. Incrementalism is a strategic approach that suggests it’s better to focus on small, tangible gains as movement toward an end goal. Many in the pro-life movement have adopted this approach, counting wins as small movements toward protecting life instead of staying focused on the main goal: the abolition of abortion.

To that end, it begs the question: Has incrementalism been harmful or helpful to the cause of life?

According to Roland Warren, President and CEO of Care Net, incrementalism works as long as you don’t violate any of these three conditions.

First: Incrementalism works as long as you don’t undermine your core values.

In the case of the pro-life movement, one relevant example of incrementalism is the 15-week abortion ban that has become the platform of many candidates who consider themselves to be pro-life. The problem with this type of incrementalism is that a 15-week abortion ban still allows for 96-98% of abortions. Therefore, adopting this incrementalist approach undermines a core value of the pro-life movement which is that every human life begins at conception and is worthy of protection, before and after 15 weeks.

Second: Incrementalism works as long as you aren’t fighting for victories that are almost meaningless to your cause.

Again, in the case of advocating for a 15-week ban on abortion, those devoted to the pro-life movement are not compromising, but rather all but conceding to the abortion advocates. Does it make sense to pour copious amounts of time and money into getting politicians to agree to a 15-week ban when we know, once again, that it will only protect, at most, 2-4 percent of all babies who would otherwise be aborted? Or, agreeing to a viability ban on abortion—at 22 weeks—which would make less than 1 percent of abortions illegal? In these cases, advocating for this type of incrementalism isn’t, by the data, any type of fair or meaningful compromise.

Third: The increments of change you seek must not include a bargaining range that excludes your desired outcome.

For example, if you’re looking for a job that pays $60,000 a year, you may have a salary range that is acceptable to you still that dips down to $54,000 or even $53,000 a year. You know what you desire, but you can be willing to compromise to a certain point. Accordingly, you wouldn’t go into your salary negotiation asking for $54,000, and hoping that, somehow, you will end up at $60,000. You ask for, say, $65,000, hoping that you will end up at $60,000, and also knowing that $54,000 would be acceptable. But in the case of the pro-life movement, incrementalism has adjusted our bargaining range outside of our desired outcome. We want abortions to be illegal at conception, but we are asking for 15 weeks… which means the bargaining range is 15-40 weeks. Because the pro-choice movement’s position is that all abortions should be legal up to 40 weeks. This is not a sound strategy, as getting to zero in this scenario is almost impossible.

Strategically, incrementalism in the pro-life movement seems to be costing us too much. Politically, how do we bargain backward to, say, a 6-week ban when we’ve already conceded to fifteen? If it’s always immoral to end the life of a child, shouldn’t we abandon the lure of legislative incrementalism and instead focus on what we can do to make abortion not just illegal, but unthinkable? Any time or money invested in this ministry goal, free from the compromise of legislative incrementalism, is arguably the most effective way to not only see babies born but to see those babies and their parents have abundant life.

This is why at Care Net we use the term, Pro Abundant Life. Our work focuses on reaching pregnant moms and expectant dads who are facing unplanned pregnancies and need support not just to choose life, but abundant life for their families and eternal life in Christ. Through our network of pregnancy centers and our efforts to train and equip churches and community leaders, we hope to do what weeks-based abortion “bans: could never do: give compassion, hope, and help to women and men considering abortion.

Share this Post