Because I believe incrementalism works. The interim argument is that, whatever you believe about matters of life, it is wrong to let the courts to create federal mandates on issues that are clearly not enumerated in the Constitution (I’m speaking in this case about this supposed “right to abortion”).
I don’t see it as conceding the life argument to acknowledge that the people are too divided at this point to address this at the federal level. Get it to the state level, start saving babies, and then use the equal protection argument to make the case for either a re-interpretation of the fourteenth amendment or the HLA.
As I’ve said before, our Founders agreed temporarily to let slavery go to the states, even knowing that slavery flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. That wasn’t a logically coherent argument — but it was the only way forward.
I’m not being argumentative, just sincerely asking: what’s the alternative in your mind? Build up enough judges on the Supreme Court to re-interpret the fourteenth amendment?
You're wrong, as least as it pertains to doing what's right.
The Hegelian philosophical roots of such an idea are the same as those of Marxism-Leninism.
Incrementalism works just dandy for evil, but not for righteousness.
If you put poison in a cup of wine "incrementally," the result is a cup of poison.
If you put wine in a cup of deadly poison, even incrementally, you never end up with a cup of wine...it is and remains a cup of poison.
I've watched this process played out in the real world, in the pro-life movement, for years, and this is how things work in reality.
We're talking about the choice of a President. The "alternative" is to elect one who understands and advocates for unalienable rights, and who will keep his sworn oath of office.