Fixing Pro-Life Strategy: Smashmouth Incrementalism at the Polls | Doug Wilson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 апр 2024
- So a couple of days ago, Donald Trump announced his stance on abortion. He declined to go for a national abortion ban, saying that the issue should be left to the individual states. In addition, he also affirmed the standard-issue “safe-for-politicians” pro-life stance, which includes room for abortion in cases of “rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”
On top of that, the Arizona Supreme Court just decided that an 1864 law, which constitutes a near-total ban on abortion, is enforceable. This is sure to inflame the left, and is likely to juice turnout for Biden. Trump’s vacillation on abortion is sure to inflame the right, and is likely to juice absolutely nothing because the right has nowhere to go. We glance to the right of Trump, eager to cast our vote for the Pure Candidate over there, and it turns out that he’s not running. Again.
And this is why we should be able to see how the times are crying out for more detailed discussion of the absolute need for smashmouth incrementalism. The time is ripe for the kind of clarity that only smashmouth incremental thinking can provide. Interested? Stick with me. 
Развлечения
Look, Dr. Wilson's video got a memory hole notification! What an honor👍
It's a beautiful thing, isn't it?
Dr?
You don't need a law banning abortion, you need a constitutional amendment defining that personhood is granted upon conception.
Some prominent pro life types are against a personhood amendment. That would take away their livelihood....
Abortion already satisfies the elements of the murder statute. However, they wrote exceptions for abortion. So we have special murder rights for women.
@@DefendersAndDisciples Except that under federal law, personhood is only granted to those born alive at any stage of development.
@@DefendersAndDisciples W.A. Criswell (former President of the Southern Baptist Convention): “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” Before 1979, nearly all of Protestantism was pro-choice.
@@manager0175 , yeah, SBC has some immoral views on abortion.
Ideologically I'm an abolitionist, but if incrementalism is what's required for victory on this political issue, then so be it. God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours.
That does not make sense. If you are an abolitionist, part of the definition is recognizing that unjust laws are just that unjust. We should not vote for them or support them. Can God use evil for good? yes. Should we vote for it? no.
Yeah, "victory" like Dobbs where afterwards not a single woman in the country is accountable in any way whatsoever for murdering her child (and are still just as easily able to carry out such murders via mail order pills).
Then you are not ideologically an abolitionist? The Bible teaches that giving approval to Laws that allow for murdering some is sinful prejudice.
@@valleyscharpingif you did not see the conversations that matter episode with three views on voting, i recommend it and prefer Cary's view. I now want the Rs to lose badly until there's repentance, but i will not go D to accomplish it, i am simply casting downballot to have ny protest counted
Yes, God’s thoughts are to do justice, not to do partiality. Incrementalism = enshrining in law the permissibility to murder some of the kids. No thanks, Doug.
Cool! You got the "abortion is good" propaganda addendum on this post. You must have left a mark. Excellent work!
Everyone gets it for mentioning abortion. What has Wilson done to stop the spread of abortion?
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nrwrong question…what have YOU done to stop the spread of abortion?
It's worth reporting it to RUclips and demanding they remove it, if enough people do that they make take note and stop advertising their demonic and murderous trade.
He is articulating a cohesive argument against it. That in itself is one thing he is doing.
@@andrewbrowne5557 Wrong question. What have YOU done to quell the consequences of restricting (or banning) abortion rights? You know, vastly increasing infant mortality rates, maternal mortality rates, poverty rates, teen pregnancy rates (this is the short list). What have you done about those? The fact is, you (and all your ilk) are not 'pro-life'. You are only 'pro-birth'.
Yes! Love this ! Thank you for speaking the obvious truth.
Abolitionism were working hard before dobs and moved the Overton window that allowed the overturn of Roe.
I sure would like to see you and Russell Hunter sit down. I think the dialogue would be good for the church.
Agreed.
I think he should also sit down and talk to Jeff Durbin
I would settle to see Doug talk to any abolitionists on the subject. That conversation needs to be had.
Apologia and Moscow have had this conversation.
@@Postmillhighlights Got a link?
... what you've shared brings to mind a parallel from history: When Abraham Lincoln ran for president he was not an abolitionist (of slavery), but only advocated that slavery not be expanded beyond the states where it was already allowed. While abolition was the right thing, he never would have gotten elected had he taken a strong abolitionist stand when running, but it set things in motion for him to later make the "Emancipation Proclamation" and eventually the total abolition of slavery. If all he had accomplished was what he had advocated when running -- that slavery not be expanded, it would have been better than the alternative, and again, taking that stance "set the stage" for the total abolition of slavery.
And many people died.
@@banemaler Yeah, as General Sherman said: "War is hell." A quote from Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural address: "“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” I heard charismatic speaker Lou Engle quote this and add something like "if more than half a million men dying in the Civil War was God's judgement for the blood shed by slaves, what kind of judgement is due America for the blood of 60 million killed by abortion?"
@@jeffreysnyder936 Sounds like something a tyrant might say.
@@banemalersomething a Christian would say. Check yourself
@@cosmictreason2242 being Christian and being a tyrant are not mutually exclusive
Well said! We need more of this.
The only incrementalism that is happening is how unconservative the conservative candidates are becoming. I will not support that. I will not vote for Trump.
Good job, Doug! You are really helpful on issues such as this!
Be sure to leave feedback for RUclips and tell them exactly what you think of their "context feature".
I call it the "memory hole" feature.
I would also like to give them some feedback on their censorship of deleting my comments lol
@@SavedByTheBloodOfChrist551as we who tend towards Truth Telling are acutely aware, RUclips IS A MARXIST RUN PLATFORM IDEOLOGICALLY OPPOSED TO FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS!! Try telling the Truth about that currently popular Unicorn euphemistically called ‘trans’genderism and see how long you’re banned from posting for violating community standards against hate speech and cyber bullying!! Christ or chaos!!
@@andrewbrowne5557 in what way is RUclips Marxist?! Isn’t it an advert-filled revenue-generator for the shareholders of a trillion dollar corporation?
I do it all the time. However, I’m not sure it will matter to them.
Well done.
Thank you from Breaux Bridge, Louisiana. Concise and clarifying.
Outstanding commentary that cuts to the very core of Trump's stand on abortion.
What is T***p's stand on abortion? 15 weeks? 6 weeks? Every state decides? Total ban? He has espoused all of those positions. Before he ran for president he was pro-choice all the way. Even including partial birth abortion.
Great analysis. Thanks.
I appreciate the wisdom and courage to speak out... I wish that all pastors would subscribe to this channel
Superb wording Doug. Thank you for your clarity.
Seems like the Lewis quote about aiming for heaven is a big part of this strategy... 👍
Thank you for this video, seriously. This helped me
Same here.
Maybe this will help you too. W.A. Criswell (former President of the Southern Baptist Convention): “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” Before 1979, nearly all of Protestantism was pro-choice.
The truth is usually helpful.
@@Michael-ue2ei Feel free to post something counter-factual. Make a liar out of me.
There are plenty of non incremental stories in the Bible. At some point you have to take a stand .
For what exactly? The thing is that most of us who are nominally against abortion are disgusted by the idea of revictimizing people who are already suffering
How do we get a better candidate for 2028?
We have voted for the lessor of two evils now for going on 20+ years. Every four years the Republican candidate gets worse on abortion. And worse in general. How do you change that?
No more democracy. Autocracy is the way forward
You asked: "We have voted for the lessor of two evils now for going on 20+ years. Every four years the Republican candidate gets worse on abortion. And worse in general. How do you change that?". Vote Democrat. 🙂
When you find yourself in a hole stop digging. To quote the great prophet Bob Newhart, "stop it". Stop rewarding bad behavior.
You are not required to vote for thing one or thing two. The Democrat party became the Communist party in large part because the American Communist Party applied enough political pressure to turn it.
If you think long term you can apply pressure and either eliminate the Whigs or turn them.
Imagine the impact if RFK takes enough votes to throw it to Congress. That will get some attention.
@@manager0175 I.e. If you're tired of the world becoming more sinful every day, vote satan. Yea right. 🙄
@@manager0175 Not quite ready to commit treason.
Legalized abortion is communism. We ought to say so more.
This is a tough one but you make a lot of sense
1. While this is the best worded version of this argument that I've heard, I still can't yet give my support to Trump. My conscience isn't there. I would rather abstain than pledge my support for compromise.
2. I don't care who platforms that "it should go to the states." It's already there, and we're already working on that level.
3. Why not just be an abolitionist? Which conservatives that aren't already convicted to vote for Trump would be appalled by the notion and convinced to vote for Biden? The issue is black and white. One side says "black," the other says "gray." This is how "conservatives" fail to conserve a damn thing around here.
4. Vote local. That makes more of a difference. It's harder, but it matters more. Find you a Christian man that's running on an abolitionist platform and support him. If you don't have one available locally, it's high time that more of us start doing something instead of shirking the responsibility off on a bunch of spineless pagans. Run for office.
You said: "This is how "conservatives" fail to conserve a damn thing around here. ". By all means run a campaign on a total ban on abortions. Those folks have been losing continually since Dobbs was handed down. And they will continue to do so.
Amen
Fantastic! That's pretty much the irreducible minimum of the topic, whether people like it or not.
The question that needs to be answered right now is this- Is Trump a smash-mouth incrementalist, or is he just a joke on this issue?
I agree with the incremental because we got to this point of evil incrementally. So I understand that seeing the day that abortion is utterly ended is going to be a step by step procedure, though I wish it wasn't.
The problem is that I honestly do not get the impression at all that Trump is even an incrementalist here. He is trying to make a deal with the spirit of the age that is going to utterly backfire- he is teying to attract pro-abortion people to his side by saying, "Look, you can still have your baby-killing, just on a state by state basis. I'm really a good guy, you know!!!" But he doesn't know or doesn't care that there is not a single person in the pro-abortion crowd who is going to look at this declaration and say, "You know, he is so right! Trump isn't that bad of a guy after all! I'll vote for him!"
If he is going to take the path of incrementalism, then he needs to ACTUALLY TAKE IT. I see zero evidence that he has done this, especially in light of his comments about pro-life people he recently made.
He is doing nothing but energizing the children of Nefarious while doing zilch to encourage us. Therefore, he is making itnfar more difficult for people like me who are on the fence to actually vote for him. If he doesn't see this soon, he is going to lose, and he will not need the children of Nefarious to help the enemy win.
This is spot on
No. He's ensured that the states that have banned it keep it banned and the states that allow it don't get their voters out to reinstate it federally.
By saying it's a states issue he can get elected, put another 1-2 judges in he Supreme Court and many more on the Federal benches. When in the future the democrats have the house, senate, and Presidency and they pass a Federal law to nationalize abortion, the judges can block them and say is a state issue.
Once it's limited to the states you can the expand it incrementally the way the abolitionists aimed to do with slavery.
The goal is to suppress the young vote and let the moral argument take root with the gospel.
Your fighting 50 years of indoctrination.
Exactly
How cute to think he has any chance of winning, even if he actually wins. Do you really think they are going to let him anywhere near the White House? Were you asleep in 2020? Do you really think these godless, demonic Leftists are going to let go of their power now, when they have come so far? Good grief, Christians are naive.
Worse than a joke. Used car salesman.
I am incrementalist doctrinally but abolitionist practically. From what Wilson says, I am apparently a smashmouth incrementalist.
Never look to Trump for moral leadership. He is, in all but a very few areas, a measure to provide space for good workers. (those few areas are, possibly, getting rid of administrative state and in foreign policy)
This is the problem. The misconception that Republicans will make it easier to abolish abortion. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The pro-life Republicans spend their whole careers fighting against abolishment. Unless we vote for actual abolishment candidates and not fake prolifers nothing will get done.
“I know we shouldn’t own slaves, but for political expediency; it’s acceptable to support slavery .”
Essentially what was said here.
If Republicans continually refuse to repent over this issue. I would consider voting for a 3rd party abolitionist.
Yes. As Doug mentioned, that person isn't in the race.
Fortunately RUclips has given me context for this video or else I would be unaware that abortion is a routine medical procedure.
Good analysis
I’m an abolitionist who will vote for Trump, most certainly not because I’m a Trumpkin, as many of my friends are, but precisely for the reasons you articulated. There’s a host of other issues that give rise to problems I have with the man. It’s a hold my nose vote for me. I noticed Jeff at Apologia put out some dissent on Doug’s takes. I paused the video and came here first to listen to Doug before listening to Jeff. I’ll be interested to hear what Jeff as to say, but it’s hard for me to find anything off base in what Doug’s articulated here. Allies are so few and rare, that I wish such dissents would be kept private in support of a united front. Fracture is mainstay cause of our Republic’s dismantling and I wish folks would bite their tongues in a distinct effort to prevent the furthering of this dynamic. That doesn’t mean agreement is necessary, but the posture of a united front, even when differences of option are present is vital and should be maintained until a final threshold is reached. Instead, we have reflexive cries highlighting every dissenting option at any and all times. Nonetheless, I will give Jeff’s words my ear. He has done much good work in this field, worthy of commending respect. I only hope his dissent doesn’t amount to a prideful personalization of the matters at hand.
His wicked position is still good enough to receive all of our votes? And people wonder why the culture always drifts left. Openly calling for us to "take what we can get" at any level is quite the naive approach.
Christless Conservativism is only good for conserving the Progressive status quo of 10 years ago.
Then get in the damn fight dude. If you don't want to "settle" then you better stop complaining and get on the battlefield and make some progress. If not, then vote for the guy who's going to make some progress without being a sanctimonious pride-monkey about it.
It being a state issue is wicked now? Interesting. I am an abolitionist btw but I would never campaign with that since I’m not stupid. The left knows how to acquire power. They don’t campaign with trans kids and open borders because then they would lose.
Just a quick reminder:
As long as the candidate running for office is a fallen human, there is no perfect candidate. We’re never going to have a better voting option than “take what we can get” until Jesus returns, at which point voting will thankfully cease.
@@grimus Why would you imply that anyone is holding out for the "perfect candidate?" It's very simple. Anyone running for office with the aim of receiving a good chunk of the Christian vote needs to understand that if they push positions which are reprehensible to believers, they risk losing said Christian vote. The threat of walking away must always exist or else our interests will be ignored.
Smash mouth incrementalism aka radicalism
The Abolitionists fundamentally disagree that we are standing on the shoulders of Dobbs. We see Dobbs as a setback and not a step forward.
Why?
Abolitionists are busy working in their States to abolish abortion. Where it's now actually possible.
Thank you for making this video. You have helped me see incrementalism from a different perspective. Now I’m faced with the problem of dealing with my newfound realization of my own weak mindedness.
After hearing the video rant from Abolish Human Abortion, I was persuaded to abstain from the presidential election later this year.
But now after hearing this one, I’m persuaded to vote for Trump after all.
Looks like my bigger problem is my pliability.
This position really does seem to make the most sense to me.
💯
He has not made it open. He very clearly verbally came out as against AZ law on abortion
Trump’s got no scruples and is attempting to be politically savvy, considering that almost all of Arizona came out as against that law. Watching republicans like Kari Lake scrambling to denounce the ban which they had previously called a “great law” is just hilarious - hypocrisy carnival !
That's how realpolitik works.
Some of us are in both groups.
💯%
Incrementalism - we all have our blind spots I suppose.
Great video. Best explanation on what "abortion" actually is. I am voting for Trump the Candidate, not the Trump the man. Trump is the best tool to get the outcome that most of us want.
I agree with the smash mouth incremental approach to abortion with a goal of total eradication. To me incrementalism is like a football team driving the ball down the field against a tough D with 4-5 yard runs and an 8-10 yard passes rather than taking the abolitionist play calling approach of immediately heaving the ball 50 yards against a blitz to a receiver in triple coverage. Both have the goal of a TD. But only one is really taking care of the football.
I hate this. I hate that this sounds right. I’m disgusted with people being ok with the slaughter of the most vulnerable human beings.
What do you guys think of Apologia Studios' response to this?
"Reselected"
Something I've never gotten a good answer from the all or nothing abolishionish crowd is if incrementalism is bad, why are you pertaking in it by only focusing on one subject? If we're to stay ideologically consistent, wouldn't we have to push for a bill that calls for the utter submission of our legal system in all categories? By focusing on one issue at a time, that in and of itself is incermentalism.
Haha… silly RUclips added “Context”.
Otherwise know as PROPAGANDA!
In a choice between 2 evils choose neither. We will never see the end of abortion by compromising God's word . We must engage in radical obedience. When we do that we will see Him work
Hello, Can I ask you some serious questions, please? When you say choose between 2 evils, I assume you mean don't vote for either candidate this election, right? And when you say we must engage in radical obedience, do you mean that not voting for either is radical obedience? Or, do you mean going out to the public square and standing at the abortion clinic and declaring the Word of God to the mothers going into the clinic is radical obedience? Or, do you mean that you will never partake in abortion and that is radical obedience? Can you please clarify what you mean by "radical obedience" and what you will be doing to be radically obedient? Thank you.
@@shellydavis6784There are actually more than two parties. In most states you will either have more than two options or a write in option.
Study, research, and pick the biggest hammer available to you.
@@mkshffr4936 I was asking Frederick.
@@shellydavis6784 OK, no desire to learn is noted.
@@mkshffr4936 so sad when a Christian acts this way. I was asking him because his statement made me curious about his stance. Not yours. You don't have to be so childish because I don't want your opinion. This is the problem. Let your Nay be Nay and your Yes be Yes. I wasn't asking you, but thank you for "teaching" me.
Incrementalism works. In 1996, not even Texas would issue concealed carry permits. Today, 29 states have constitutional carry (no permit required). That happened incrementally.
That’s not what the issue is. There’s no abolitionists saying that “incrementalism doesn’t work”. The issue is what’s right and what’s wrong. We have tens of millions of lives at stake and the “conservatives” are just 20 years behind the progressives and willing to bend the knee for the possibility of more votes. I predict that this move is actually going to get him less votes
@@ogloc6308 "There’s no abolitionists saying that 'incrementalism doesn’t work'."
That's false. I've had that exact conversation.
@@ogloc6308 Sort of. We should boldly declare the truth, but realize, under our governmental system, we have to persuade others to win.
Unless you are willing to do this by force, which would have consequences most people aren't willing to bear.
@@ogloc6308Without more votes, Biden and the Democratic Party wins. And there will probably be a federal law legalizing Roe. Votes are important in our system. Without them, the loser has no say over any issue: abortion, the LGBTQ agenda, the environmental agenda, the DEI agenda, the border, etc. With 70% of the voting electorate supporting abortion with restrictions, the Republicans are going to have to compromise if they want any say at all in these issues at all.
Dobbs was not the result of incrementalism. It was the result of 50 years of unqualified opposition to Roe until finally the judged that were available to be nominated all were convinced, due to the culture they grew up in, that Roe was a bad ruling. There are no incremental legal victories that led to dobbs, it was abolitionist messaging that accomplished it
I wonder what is Trump's personal experience of abortion. How many of his own children have been aborted? How times did he pressure someone to have an abortion? How many times did someone abort his child against his own desire? He seems to have been 'pro-choice' in the past, now he seems to be against it though he doesn't think he can win an election while voicing a strongly pro-life message. If so, did this change happen because he realised he lost a child he wanted?
Ad hominem much James?
I think it was about the extreme events of aborting fully formed babies. He doesn't think the tiny ones are people.
@@YSLRD these are extreme and rare events, far from the norm; nine out of ten abortions happen before twelve weeks.
Politicians are mercenaries. One who is pragmatically pseudo-alignment trumps a champion of the hostile camp.
When "A probable state of affairs" equals "the chaos of our times". God help us we pray and may His kingdom come and His will be done.
You said: "God help us we pray and may His kingdom come and His will be done." Wilson is a Calvinist. According to Calvinism, God has already decided who will be redeemed, and the rest will be condemned. So all of your prayers (indeed all Christian activity) is rendered meaningless and valueless. If Calvinism is true.
How about the bogus “abortion is a medical procedure” pop up. Medical procedures don’t kill babies. They save them.
Newspeak is always the front line vanguard of the battle.
In rare circumstances, as in I have never known one case in my 65 years as an internist (not OB though); abortion is a medical procedure that will save the mother by killing the child. For example, a tubal or mesenteric pregnancy or some cases of eclampsia (again, rare).
You said: "How about the bogus “abortion is a medical procedure” pop up. Medical procedures don’t kill babies. They save them". Abortion is a medical procedure. More than that, it is a necessary medical procedure for women's reproductive health.
Oh yes, the king of compromise speaks again. Does God say, “ Repent of your sin!” Or does God say “Chip away at it.” Hmmm🤔
Doug is a boomertard after all
And yet how many believers can truthfully lay claim to laying their sin down to never return to it?
Would be surprised if there are any genuine "smash-mouth" incrementalists who would not praise God in tears of joy for an outright ban on abortion. So, let's not set them up as an enemy to the cause.
@@elmerfudd2402 The fact that ppl struggle with putting away sin doesn't mean God is going to lower His standards. Compromising with the enemy is the same as being in bed with them. Rep don't look at it that way, which is why they're just as guilty for the nation underdoing this immoral transformation. They compromised with the left on everything, whether it be sexuality, abortion, the nuclear family, and even the southern border.
We aren't able to vote for a political party that wants to make abortion, sorry prenatal murder, illegal here in the Netherlands either. And we have a separate political party for every issue you can imagine (except for this one); even an animal party!? 😢
the 19th amendment was a mistake
Most important issue
@@44golfreak all we need is to get anti-19th majorities in 38 state legislatures I believe
Which is why my wife of 44 years demands I stand next to her and tell her exactly how to vote. I have never suggested it, but she is adamant that I do so. As we have voted in the same precinct since 1992, the people there know us well. One time another voter, a woman with disheveled and asymmetric hair (ie, that's a liberal look) protested. A meltdown occurred between my wife screaming that she had the right to have me tell her how to vote, and how dare she interfere in my being her boss, and the liberal that she was clearly a victim of abuse by me. The staff looked on in both amusement and confusion for awhile until they calmly asked my wife if she would sign a form that authorized me to help her vote given a disability, or if perhaps they needed to call the police. My wife responded that since she had undergone "mental pause", she obviously was too confused to understand the procedures (she intentionally mispronounces "menopause" as "mental pause" as a "Floridian slip".). The liberal woman left, my wife refused to sign the form, and the staff gave up and allowed me to stand there. It is a conservative precinct is South Florida.
Let me tell you that among old time Cubans, there's a certain kind of woman (whose children call the honey badger) who fiercely defends her right to be dependent. Look up the term honey badger. We need LESS civility among Christian women and more honey badgers. Oh, our kids call me the grizzly bear.
By all means run for office on the platform that women should not have the right to vote. I am sure democrats will give you all the campaign donations you would ever need.
@@manager0175 democracy is so gay
Ha! The "Context" addendum - "An abortion is a procedure to end pregnancy." Tell me again, what do human females get pregnant with?
Personhood now
Lincoln was very clear that he was not in favor of ending slavery outright. This resulted over time to the end of slavery.
He was in favor. What he made a clear distinction about was that he delineated his civil authority from his convictions
No it was never the issue with him. The issue was permanent federal supremacy.
@@mkshffr4936 "No it was never the issue with him. The issue was permanent federal supremacy."
me-> Who is "him": Lincoln, Trump, Wilson or someone else?
Please be precise with your pronouns. I demand to be referred to as "them" as I view myself as a colony of symbiotic cells, mostly male. OK, that's a :) about the pronoun for me only.
@@JesusRodriguez-zy3wj 🤣 Sorry. I was referring to Emperor Lincoln.
He also allowed
Freed slaves to be sent back to their former slave owners
But! You just said! Get what you can get while you can, and then go for the whole child at conception. Why begin by throwing Trump under the bus, again.?!
Everyone listen to Knox’s last “civic covenanting” episode with David Reece on trump
As much as I like Doug, he sounds more like Satan than Jesus and this
We can have all the kingdoms of the world bow down to us and our ideas as long as we are not idealist that bow down to him first
We don’t need incrementalism we need submission to Christ
If a 9 years girl is violated by her father and becomes pregnant with twins should she be forced to carry they children even if it will kill her? This kind of stuff happens more than people realize.
Oh really? How often does it happen? Do you have a stat for that?
But before I engage with this super rare hypothetical, can you tell me if you are ok with abortion in normal circumstances?
Everybody spam the abortion “health” prompt that comes up with a scriptural argument against abortion.
Where is abortion addressed in the Bible?
@@manager0175
“You shall not murder.”
@@Joel-bg3cf Abortion is not murder. Abortion was never considered murder until the late 1970s. Abortion was never a religious issue until the late 1970s by Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich. They had a lot of bad press for the segregationist views, so they created abortion an alternative issue to get the heat off their views of segregation. You have been duped.
@@manager0175 this is absurd. Roe V. Wade was a tragedy to my mom when it happened in the EARLY 70s. You’ve been duped.
@@Joel-bg3cf So let me get this right. In the early 70s, your mother was charged with murder for having an abortion? Is that what you are saying?
6:27: "Abolition is not on the rise because incrementalism is a dead end-just the reverse. Abolitionism is a real option now because of the success of incrementalism."
Ehh... I'd say it's a valid option because of Russell Hunter
Since Dobbs was decided, every time states get to vote of abortion rights, abortion rights wins. Do you call that "success of incrementalism"?
Postmill patience.
We need much more of it. Too many postmils vote like dispensationalists.
My apologies if I misunderstood your first point. It wasn't clear..., I don't think... because "they" evangelicals don't understand, doesn't mean he didn't, an option that you didn't give him credit for
Some good thoughts here, however Trump’s recent reaction to the Arizona ban is pragmatically going away from abolitionism not making space for it. He says they got it wrong.
For an alternative response and analysis of Trump on abortion consider this:
m.ruclips.net/video/raD1fuNdzo4/видео.html
Hey, you’re doing something right when you speak truth AND get the “context” banner
Yoot Oob is busy D leet ng calm mints this morning…
The fallacy of Roe was that it took the right of the state to legislate (10th Amendment). The call for a national ban is simply Roe in reverse. Let the states decide!
The Supremacy Clause of the constitution ends states right. And it has been dead for over 150 years. And good riddance. States rights is a racist issue.
The tyrant in the top hat killed the constitution.
Have you ever really looked at the Lincoln Memorial. It sends a chill up the spine.
States don't have the power to deny basic rights. Abortion denies people of their fundamental rights.
The states shouldn't be asking whether Americans have a right to life or not. It should already be understood that they do as a truism, considering the U.S. is supposedly a Christian nation that was founded on biblical values. God's law says that harming a baby while it is in the womb is the same as murdering an adult. What is so hard to understand about that? Do we say "let the states decide if homicide should be declared illegal"?
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 What actually happens to embryos that are aborted according to your religion??
Respectfully, it seems like being an ideologue when it comes to lock downs is ok, but when it comes to baby murder we need a third way (smashmouth incramentalism).
This may be a non sequitur but there doesn't seem to be much difference between Doug's suggestion and pro life incramentalism because it is always kicking the can down the road. Opinions weicome.
He's a bommertard that worships democracy. Doug is far too gone
Do we refuse to vote for any candidates unless we can have a top to bottom government comprised of only regenerate, Christ-exalting bible study leaders?
@elmerfudd2402 or we use our united influence as Christians to sway the candidate's position on the issue of baby murder instead of sarcastic comments about a Bible study leader...🤔
Not sure how we are to participate as citizens in a sin-tainted world if we can only vote for candidates who perfectly align with our particular view of righteousness on every issue.
Those who decide to make the best choice available while trusting in God's sovereignty are not enemies of righteousness.
@elmerfudd2402 God's sovereignty is not to be understood in a fatalistic approach to life. We Christians are to live by faith in what is clearly provided in God's Word and trust Him, our Sovereign, to do what is right despite perceived outcomes. Pragmatism has its place, but on certain issues, Christians must stand together and say "no". What disheartens me is the lack of conviction to pay the price for what is right.
Leaving it to the states is a legitimate position. Ron Paul takes this stance. As Paul pointed out, abortion is or should be a crime. Crimes are to be policed by the states just like any other crime including all homicides. On rape and incest, Trump took that same stance in 2016, so no actual change. He is wrong in saying Reagan supported a rape and incest exception. Reagan only supported an exception for the life of the mother. The Bushes popularized the rape and incest exception in the GOP.
I get it, but the core issue of personhood is a federal issue because our basic rights as persons are enumerated at the federal level.
I get the “state” approach, but if states no longer share a common definition of something so basic as what a person is, then there is not enough commonality to have an American union of states (cf the civil war, or war of northern aggression, depending 😄)
@@eric_eagle The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 2). Federal law is supreme over state laws and state constitutions. .
Not voting for Trump because someone is an abolitionist is idiocy.
Philosphically, I'm a Biblically oreinted Abolitionist. That is as it should be. However, I am also a William Wilberforce "incrementalist". That too, is as it should be. So have at it all of you who think it's one or the other and there's no room for those who refuse to be cowed into choosing one position over and against the other. The tension that exists between the two positions and the balance that is needed to navigate it is much preferble in my opinion to that proverbial "cutting my nose off to spite my face". I like my nose where it is and it goes well with the face I was given.
Wilberforce an incrementalist?
ruclips.net/video/_hM_NZTiJR0/видео.htmlsi=gdPopBXeNnyrLrIE
Philosophically, theologically, ethically, morally, and existentially, I am a Christian man, pro-choice, that votes straight line democrat.
@@manager0175 - Right. And I bet you also have a bridge in NYC you want to sell me and you also believe men can menstruate.
Wilbur force was not an incrementalist.
@@gregolson7499 no he wasn’t and I posted a link to ‘Abolitionists Rising’ discussing that issue and the post was deleted.
I'm an abolishonist but have a hard time debating my pro life stance in the instance of an ectopic pregnancy....anyone help me with this?
When life and death are literally in your hands you choose the option that will save the most lives.
The ectopic baby is not viable. The child will die and that isn't going to change. The mother however may certainly die from blood loss if something isn't done to save her. Now if on principle you let the mother die and she leaves behind five orphans and a widowed husband how is that the better choice?
Save the mother of five children and the wife of a loving husband. The choice isn't really that difficult to make.
Christian doctors have been at the forefront of advancing medical procedures to preserve neo-natal life. The focus should be concrete examples of developing procedures that can successfully and safety transplant ectopic pregnancies to the womb where they can develop and be born healthy. Then everyone will be without excuse.
Always get a second or third opinion on whether there's an ectopic pregnancy in the first placepregnancy. Usually they claim this when the embryo is microscopic so there's no way to verify its location with an ultrasound. The fallopian tube could have a cyst.
@@cosmictreason2242 usually? Like you have literally any experience of this
@@aallen5256 you are not a doctor, or a Christian, and have never had children. Bye bye
I've a serious complaint about whomever is responsible for the editing of these videos. It's nearly impossible to get all of the links to the other articles on abortion when they come up, all five of them in less than 2 seconds. Here's how to do properly. When Doug says "Here, here, here, here, and here" you need to fill the screen with each of those little placards, and leave them up TO AT LEAST when Doug says "... but if you want to be ready." Good grief. It's like those horribly-made websites that are so user unfriendly that no one but the creative techs can navigate. Make sure that YOU are actually able to use what you're posting.
Very well said (as usual).
One of the best things that could happen for the preborn is for Donald J. Trump to lose, and it be apparent it was because of his position on abortion.
Nothing could bring about quicker change to the Republican Party on the issue of abortion.
I don't know. Haven't we had republican candidates for years that would say what we wanted to hear about abortion but achieve nothing concrete? Has Donald Trump not achieved more actual progress on the issue than any single person in American history?
You don't seem to know the GOP.
@@moretacabsolutely correct
Remarkable how out of touch this take is, as are many from our Christian brothers and sisters on this issue.
I’m right with you on abortion, but there is no moral burden to vote for Trump, or to vote at all, especially after the 2020 nuclear detonation of trust in the voting system (which people seem to have forgotten already).
Certainly voting Trump/GOP is no sin. And certainly there is a moral obligation for the Christian to NOT vote for the godless left. But that negative cannot biblically be spun into a positive imperative to vote Republican.
You said: "Certainly voting Trump/GOP is no sin. And certainly there is a moral obligation for the Christian to NOT vote for the godless left. But that negative cannot biblically be spun into a positive imperative to vote Republican." What about the natural consequences of restricting abortion rights? You have a moral, and ethical responsibility to deal with massively increased infant mortality rates, maternal mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates, poverty rates, and many other catastrophic consequences that you (and your ilk) continually ignore.
@@manager0175 Keep in mind that you must weigh whatever negative down stream effects you believe will occur from less elective pregnancy terminations against the benefit of those children being allowed to live.
@@moretac You said: "Keep in mind that you must weigh whatever negative down stream effects you believe will occur from less elective pregnancy terminations against the benefit of those children being allowed to live.".. And who is qualified to to make those evaluations? And what criteria will be used to make that evaluation? These are not "whatever negative down stream effects you believe will occur.." These are ACTUAL effects, directly caused by restricting abortion rights. Not conjectures. With all due respect, your comment seems to yet another attempt to avoid dealing with the atrocities directly caused by restricting abortion rights.
@@manager0175 I appreciate your feedback good sir. I don't know who is truly qualified to make those evaluations but I thought us comment section peeps could at least try to discuss in this democratic Republic we are blessed with. So let's go through it starting with your first one: Infant mortality. Why would Infant mortality go up if there are less elective pregnancy terminations?
@@moretac Thank you. You asked: "Why would Infant mortality go up if there are less elective pregnancy terminations?". Very simple. You are forcing more women to endure high risk pregnancies. Thus, more low birth weight babies. Higher infant mortality. More women dying in pregnancy. More 10 year old rape victims forced to endure pregnancy to term. Which wrecks their bodies and minds. ,
Trumpkin was loyal to Caspian…
Jk
I’m grateful that finally Doug have admitted in less than 15 minutes that he is a prolifie.
What if I'm a consistent abolitionist and I won't vote for Trump?
That would be a long discussion.
Doug is right. Follow Doug.
Not voting for Trump is no sin. No Christian conscience should be unduly burdened to vote for him. Persuasion, arguments, sure. But Christians have liberty of conscience to vote Trump, someone else, or nobody at all.
The only way a Christian sins in voting is by supporting parties with platforms that explicitly oppose God’s word (Democrat, Green, Socialist, etc).
I'm in the same boat. I can't bring my conscience to tolerate it. Not to say it won't happen in the coming months after a lot of prayer, but if the vote was tomorrow morning, Trump doesn't have my support.
I won't vote for trump Beecher m because of his 💉 record. At this point I'm determined to refuse to support the magic R until they start doing what I want.
I am not able to tell you my position bc yt is trying to control you
I appreciate you calling attention to the evils of abortion. But, as the head of an institution training students and as a person with a national platform speaking to a Christian audience you should also be calling Christian men and women (and the pastors that lead them) to accountability and repentance for using the abortifacients like "birth control" pill and even the IUD. These abominations need to be spoken against as well. The "unwanted pregnancy" idea plagues the Christian community as much as the pagan.
Cynical
I’m a big supporter of you, Doug. But you are being very inconsistent, brother.
That because hes not standing firm with biblical values hes rolling around in the vomit and spirit of this world with half measures, The Lord doesnt deal with half measures.
@@firstorder438 Lets say you have ten babies, and you could save 5 of them by taking an incremental approach on abortion, would you do it? Or would you rather take an abolitionist stance on abortion and save none of them?
@@nogoodusernames100 You can play your little mind games to make yourself feel better my friend I'll stick with the word of God which I notice you use none of.
Proverbs 25:26-Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.
Key verse here pay attention open your eyes 2 Corinthians 6:14-Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Compromising with the wicked always leads to ruin do you not read your scriptures read what happened to king David and Solomon when they compromised, yeah the ruin of there houses.
Did not Peter compromise when he denied our Lord 3 times?
Psalm 119:3-who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways!
God Bless and be better we represent not the world or ourselves but Christ :)
@@firstorder438 Its not a mind game, its looking at the reality of the situation and insisting that lasting changes can be made. We are dealing with pragmatist politicians and a majority of mentally-degenerate-leftist populace. You cannot maintain laws you might pass in a nation who's majority opposes you. They are the majority in both party's and will add stricter laws to nullify your actions as Jeff Durbin and EAN is finding out.
We need to push the envelope as far as we can and win every victory we can at ever turn. Along with the relentless political push, the hearts and minds effort has to be sustained, in concert with the gospel itself. Not just abortion mills, that many people avoid but promotions in media, on the floor of congress and all over. It must be explained to people why the practice is evil in a way they can understand otherwise, the propaganda machine will continue to churn out opposition to the cause of life.
See Wilberforce for what a successful incremental slog of abolition against a majority cultural opinion looks like. It took years of creative arguments and devastating setbacks all of which led to incremental wins for the glory of God. Ultimately, abolition was both accepted as majority position and passed in parliament, made effective across the empire... And it still wasn't perfect, especially in their breadbasket colonies. That is what is being proposed by incrementalists. Not what is being done by the people at big anti-abortion, so don't conflate the two. Their interest in defeating bills of abolition is clearly to keep abortion for job security and trim around the edges.
You are arguing like a John Brown. No one wants to hear, or respected John Brown in life. And in spite of his zeal he got nothing positive done. Only left chaos in his wake and the passionate American abolitionists shifted from peaceful abolition modeled after Wilberforce to a war footing. 700k people, a majority Christian brothers, lost their lives as a result.
Thank you for this commentary and I find that many Christians say they are Abolitionists, but NEVER go to an abortion clinic and try to talk to mothers going in or attend abortion rallies and counter protest or support Abolitionists with their funds.
Really? my experience has been the exact opposite. The only people that go to abortion clinics in my area are abolitionist.
@@chadbarel9867 I came here to say this too. There are some faithful Catholics at the clinic, but especially in states without clinics...the abolitionists are the ones still bringing awareness that babies die by the thousands due to pills.
@@chadbarel9867 That's not what I meant. I meant that most Christians that I know who say they are against abortion do not attend events, abortion clinics or give to Abolitionist causes. Of course, most Abolitionists are Christians, but there are very few who support the cause. Do you have a favorite one that you support or are involved with?
@@shellydavis6784most are pro-life, which is sad
Supporting/volunteering at pregnancy centers is also good.
This is the rare occasion that I can agree without qualification. Apparently, I'm a smash mouth incrementalist.
I also think our Constitution requires us to fight this on a state by state basis. There is no authority given to federally regulate murder.
No government on Earth has the authority to regulate murder. Every last instance must be outlawed and giving approval to some baby murders and not others in laws you vote for or support, is still giving approval to those baby murders. It's sinful prejudice. Stop using worldly wisdom, trust in God's ways.
@@valleyscharpingpeople worship the false God of democracy
You said: " I also think our Constitution requires us to fight this on a state by state basis. There is no authority given to federally regulate murder.". The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mandates that federal law supersedes state laws and state constitutions. State's rights is dead. And has been dead for over 150 years.
The end goal for both the pro life incrementalism position (at least if they genuinely detest abortion and not simply for political reasons) and the abolitionist position is the same: eliminating abortion nationally. The difference is that the abolitionist position seems incredibly unrealistic and naive. If trump says “yes let’s do a national ban” then there goes a big chunk of his voters and nothing will be done at all.
And, even as someone who seems to be politically motivated, Trump has done more against abortion nationally than anyone else I can think of.
No government on Earth has the authority to regulate murder. Every last instance must be outlawed and giving approval to some baby murders and not others in laws you vote for or support, is still giving approval to those baby murders. It's sinful prejudice. Stop using worldly wisdom, trust in God's ways.
"There goes a big chunk of his voters"
Cap. Half of all churchgoers don't even go to the poll. Actually doing Christian policy would get them enthusiastic to support it
@@valleyscharpingincrementalism is unregulating murder. Once again, you’ve missed the point. If Trump takes the extreme position, we now get nothing no matter how spiritual we sound.
@@cosmictreason2242Where did you get that statistic? What makes you think all church goers are abolitionists or even knowledgeable about the abortion issue?
Thanks for exposing your moral corruption to everybody!
The constitution does not address this issue and should therefore be determined by the states. Otherwise an amendment should be presented and approved by the states to make it part of the constitution. In the meantime it should stay out of the courts.
Incorrect, murder is already illegal
It is not up to the states to decide what murder is.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 isn’t it? The variant versions of stand-your-ground laws strongly imply otherwise - some states have duty to retreat, some have castle doctrine, some have variations, and all of those are examples of legislation which differentiates between murder and self-defence.
You said: "The constitution does not address this issue and should therefore be determined by the states. Otherwise an amendment should be presented and approved by the states to make it part of the constitution." You are correct. Just like France did recently, we should have new constitutional amendments securing abortion rights, securing all eligible voters access to voting, requiring all federal candidates to reveal all of their financial assessments, and requiring the source all monies donated to a presidential campaign to be made public (no dark money).
@@aallen5256 States can implement laws that allow someone to take another person's life under legally justifiable situations like self defense, but that is not the same as them inherently possessing the authority to define murder. So i'll repeat what i said before: it is not up to the states to decide what murder is. If a person were to kill a pregnant woman, they'd be charged with murdering 2 ppl instead of just the woman.
Your nose is showing.
Der juden....
Doug, literally just become an abolitionist. Tiresome.
This is one of the sticky wickets that worried me about Trump the first time around. Modern society, including modern “Christian” society doesn’t have the stomach for strong measures. It’s uncomfortable and “harsh”. I don’t think that Jonah was called on to deliver “smashmouth incrementalism” to Nineveh; they had forty days to get their act together. Lot and his family had even less time. Besides, once Roe v. Wade was overturned, the tired old tropes that we’ve been hearing for years got trotted out again. The exemptions for “rape, incest and life of the mother” arguments” were hitched up alongside the various degrees of weeks after which abortion was banned. Women and their “advocates” figuratively lit their hair on fire and vowed to change their states’ constitutions to permanently enshrine the damnable practice; it happened here in my home state along with a transgender bill. Whoever wrote the bills wrote them in such a way that if you weren’t informed ahead of time or didn’t properly process how the bill was written, you could have easily voted the opposite of your desired outcome. I don’t call that a “smashmouth incremental victory”.
How about this? How about “smashmouth incrementalists” propose legislation that bans all premarital and adulterous sex? Follow it up by banning birth control medication. Institute paternity tests for anyone found pregnant under these circumstances and sanction the sperm donor. Make it a law that the first person with whom you engage in intercourse is automatically your spouse. That should severely cut down on unwanted pregnancies, bad choices of husband or wife and extramarital bedroom activities. What! This sounds too radical? Well maybe wee back off a bit and take a small victory rather than swallow the whole camel. The bottom line is that law cannot make people righteous. Unless the culture is changed in the hearts of the individuals in it, you will have limited, if any success in moving it back towards morality: unless something like fire from heaven happens.