By Judie Brown
Incremental: gradual, phased, piecemeal
This word and its derivatives suggest slow but steady movement of some sort including, according to many, efforts to end the killing of innocent babies. Alexandra DeSanctis opines that while pro-life people work to end every abortion, we must consider political and cultural realities. Thus, she said, “Political prudence requires a more sophisticated plan than immediately advancing the most protective pro-life policies we can imagine.”
Does Christ teach us to gradually strive to obey His commandments? Does common sense dictate that we carefully choose our words prior to explaining that abortion kills people? Or have we, after more than 50 years of debate on this point, arrived at a stalemate because we hesitate to use the “M” word?
Yes, I mean murder.
For advocates of life, the incrementalism of the day is a roadblock, and sadly it’s a politically motivated condition that comes about when pro-life political types defer to elected officials before setting the goals for a given moment in time. Even Pope Leo has put a spin on things, saying, “Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. . . . And someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
Whoa!
How did we arrive at a moment in time when the pope suggests that the babies, criminals, and immigrants all have equal footing in the battle to end the demonic slaughter of the innocent?
Babies cannot fight for their rights or engage in a legal battle to argue their case in court. Criminals can do that, but babies cannot.
Babies do not cross the border from one nation to another after consciously choosing to risk everything in the hopes of living free. Babies live or die because of the choices of others.
Put simply, the preborn child is not a criminal. Nor is she an immigrant. She is an innocent child of God, and her right to life is paramount. Citizens can argue about immigration and capital punishment, but when it comes to aborting an innocent person, there should be no debate.
This is so, and in America we even have a Declaration of Independence that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
LIFE!
Yet, as we know, the baby is rarely, if ever, recognized by those who advocate for abortion. According to a recent report from the Pew Research organization, there is really no specific way to report on the exact number of babies being aborted annually.
Yet we know that each baby is a person, not a numeral.
Arguing that “everyone knows that you can’t turn a ship on a dime,” it is suggested that we must work toward achieving an end to abortion by taking small steps without abandoning the principle.
To such commentators, not to mention the pope, I ask: Does a single abortion kill a single human being? Is it moral to announce publicly that we are incrementally working to end abortion while recognizing the fact that in the process babies will continue to be brutally or chemically killed?
The incrementalist will say that we cannot end all abortion, so we need to do what we can. But again, I ask, since this very question has been part of the pro-life dialogue for more than 50 years, why does it remain a strategic option?
In 2026, babies die by chemical assault weapons, surgical instruments, blasé decisions in reproductive technologists’ offices, and in the bathrooms of expectant mothers. America has become more efficient about the killing methods, perhaps because rather than fighting as a unified front to save every single baby, pro-lifers have chosen to play a political chess game.
This might work when it comes to immigration or capital punishment because interested citizens can see the human being at the center of the discussion. But when it comes to preborn children, nobody sees them, meets with them, or proposes who among them is willing to die for the sake of saving the rest.
Thus, I pray that we may never say by word or deed: Incrementally yours, baby. So sorry some of you must die!