Mitigating evil

One problem I have with AHA is how they frame the issues. Here's a case in point:

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2014/04/christian-this-was-written-for-you.html

i) It begins with a malicious, idiosyncratic interpretation of laws designed to restrict abortion. Take parental consent. AHA acts as if a parental consent law means it's morally okay for parents to consent to their minor's abortion.

a) That, however, is not the motivation of the lawmaker. That's a malicious interpretation of his motivation. His intention is to restrict abortion. This is one way of doing that. 

b) Parental consent laws don't empower parents to consent to their minor's abortion. If an underage daughter has a parent or parents who support her abortion, then a parental consent law is superfluous in that case. Absent the parental consent law, she is free to undergo the abortion anyway. With or without a parental consent law, she can abort her baby.

c) Rather, parental consent laws empower parents to refuse to authorize "an abortion provider" to perform that procedure on their underage daughter. Some parents will take advantage of that law, thereby reducing the number of abortions. 

As a rule, a doctor who performs a medical procedure on a minor without the consent of a parent or legal guardian is subject to legal and professional sanctions. He can be prosecuted. He can lose his medical license. So it's a disincentive.

d) Not only does the objection rest on a malicious and idiosyncratic interpretation of the lawmaker's motivation, but it then imputes that interpretation to Americans in general who supposedly form their views regarding the morality of abortion on the state of the law. Does AHA have any scientific opinion polling data to substantiate the claim that that's how Americans form their views about the morality of abortion? 

On the one hand, prolifers who lobby for restrictive legislation don't base their moral views on the state of the law. Rather, because they think abortion is (at least in most cases) wrong, they think the law should reflect that prior moral assessment. They lobby to change laws to make them more restrictive. 

On the other hand, proponents of abortion-on-demand resent legal restrictions on abortion. They don't think partial birth abortion is wrong because it's illegal. To the contrary, they think it should be allowed, despite its illegality. They oppose legal restrictions. They lobby for their repeal. 

So neither side of the abortion debate is taking its cues regarding the morality of abortion from the legality (or illegality) of abortion. Rather, both sides begin with antecedent views regarding the morally licit or illicit status of abortion, then agitate for laws that reflect that prior position. 

e) Finally, it's malicious as well as illogical to stipulate that the scope of legal restrictions implies that only legally forbidden abortions are morally wrong whereas legally permitted abortions are morally permissive. That's willfully obtuse.

Legal restrictions reflect what is politically feasible. Abortion restrictions would be more expansive if prolife lawmakers had the votes. 

ii) The article also complains about abortion restrictions based on code violations, viz. mandating medically qualified practitioners. 

This objection goes to a contradiction in abolitionist philosophy. What's the objective? To save babies or make a statement?

Code violations are like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. It's an indirect way of achieving a goal. Sometimes the direct approach is preferable because it's politically feasible. You have to be ingenious. 

If that saves the lives of babies, why does AHA oppose it? Because they think it "sends the wrong message"? 

So what's the priority? Should more babies die so that we can send the right message?

If it's a choice between reducing abortion and making a statement, which takes precedence? And what's the value of "the message" if it comes at the cast of innocent lives? 

At least to judge by some of their representatives, AHA seems to have an all-or-nothing policy. Oppose laws that save if such laws (allegedly) send the wrong message. Better to let more babies die unless and until we can pass laws that send the right message. 

The result is a prohibitive policy in theory, but a permissive policy in practice. We are so uncompromising in theory that we will support a very permissive policy in practice–by opposing restrictive legislation–unless and until, at some indeterminate date in the future, we can achieve a total ban on abortion. All-or-nothing: therefore nothing. 

iii) AHA tries to discredit the mainstream prolife movement by pointing out the limited success of its efforts. However, it's not a failure to achieve less than you are able to achieve. 

iv) AHA is an odd combination of optimism and defeatism, idealism and cynicism. On the one hand it points to the stymied efforts of the prolife movement. On the other hand, its alternative vision a Pollyannaish belief that they can do so much better. But if you can't achieve lesser goals, what makes you think you can achieve far greater goals? If even modest efforts to restrict abortion are so difficult to secure, what makes a far more ambitious agenda more attainable? 

v) A basic problem with their contemptuous attitude towards mainsteam prolife activism is that abolitionists have no fallback in case their agenda can't deliver the goods. 

Today's "uncompromising" abolitionist can easily become tomorrow's bitter do-nothing. Unrealistic idealism invites cynical disillusionment. Activists often drop out of social movements after their hopes are dashed. 

It's easy to suffer from prolife burnout if your expectations are excessive. Having set the bar so high, and been so disdainful of mainsteam prolife activism, abolitionists have nothing to fall back on. To go back to garden-variety prolife activism would be too much of a comedown. 

It's fine to push the envelop, but part of fidelity is to live with frustration. Sometimes the best we can do is to mitigate evil. But that's a noble and necessary effort.