Distracting From The Discussion

Often in a discussion of abortion one side will try to distract the other by not focusing on the topic at hand, but defending their position by repeating the mantras of their side. For example, when a pro-life view of the nature of the unborn is given, the pro-choicer's rebuttal sometimes is, "It's the woman's right to choose" or "It's her body" or any number of arguments. The goal is to distract the pro-lifer from their view because the pro-choicer is very uncomfortable about talking about what the unborn is. Then the pro-lifer should state "Let's first discuss what the unborn is before we move on to one of your assertions." If they agree, then you can take each claim one at a time. If they continually distract you before you're done with the original discussion then there is no need to pursue the conversation any further. A helpful way to get the pro-choicer focused is to say "Let's talk through my claim first, and you will have an opportunity to show me that I possibly could be wrong. I want to listen to what you have to say about my assertions on the issue."

The reverse is also true. If the pro-choicer first makes a claim, then the pro-lifer shouldn't automatically dismiss it. They also shouldn't start with their own mantras, such as "Abortion is murder," or "Aren't you glad your mother didn't abort you?" It's the pro-lifers responsibility to work through the pro-choice arguments, one at a time, and attempt to show the fallacy of them.

In both cases there needs to constantly be a focus on one particular area of the debate. It must be done in a logical fashion or emotions often will take over on either side and little progress will be made.

Short Pro-Life Statements

What if you have only a short time to make a case for the pro-life position? Here are a few statements that can help:

1) If the unborn is growing, it must be alive. If it has human parents, it must be human. And living humans like you and I are valuable.

2) If you don't know if the unborn is alive, then why take the risk by having an abortion? If it's not alive, then why is an abortion necessary?

3) The heart of the unborn begins to beat at three weeks and the brain begins to function at six weeks.

4) The unborn has the three characteristics of being alive: growth, metabolizing food for energy, and reacting to stimuli. Its DNA is distinctly human and also different from its human parents.

5) The Law of Biogenesis states that each living thing that reproduces creates its own kind. Obviously, human parents can only produce human offspring.

6) How can two humans create something that is not human but later becomes one?

7) We don't allow the killing of toddlers, so why should the killing of unborn humans be accepted?

The Burden Of Proof In The Abortion Discussion

In discussions about the abortion issue, there are often claims made that are not backed up by facts. For instance, a pro-choicer will often make the claim that the unborn is not a human at a certain stage of development. The burden is on them to back up their statement with evidence. It is not the time for the pro-lifer to begin stating his argument. Several questions could be asked to the pro-choicer, such as: Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have for that claim? If it is not a human, then what is it? What makes you think that it is not a human at this stage of development, but it is at another? Thus, the subject of the discussion stays focused on defining the unborn. Also, a potential volatile situation is often diffused because the pro-choicer must rationally defend his statement. If he can't explain what the entity is, then it is time for the pro-lifer to move in with the statements: If it has human parents, it must be human. It also has its own genetic makeup that is uniquely its own. By putting the burden of proof on the one making the claim, then the pro-life argument is often made for the pro-lifer without them having to make a long convincing argument.

The Middle Ground Approach

Recently I saw a video on Youtube where Bill Clinton was speaking with a crowd, and two onlookers held up signs that said, "Pro Life" and "Abortion Kills Children." Immediately Clinton verbally attacked the two, stating basically that if they were really pro-life, they would want to put women and their doctors in prison. He never addressed the message of "Abortion Kills Children" but instead attacked the pro-lifers holding the signs. This whole scenario lasted about a minute-and-a half, and nothing really was accomplished.

What occurred at that confrontation is what frequently happens when the pro-life and pro-choice sides interact. Both groups will loudly express their well-worn slogans, which provokes their particular group into a frenzy. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been plenty of marches with both pro-life or pro-choice convictions, chanting and possibly hearing a few speeches, but something has been obviously missing. Constructive dialogue has been sorely lacking between the two persuasions. If one side were to listen to the other's arguments and conclusions, they could determine if their position could stand up to scrutiny. One constructive way to discuss the issue is to find the common or middle ground between the polarized positions and progress from there.

For instance, a pro-choice proponent often says that the three-week old embryo is just a blob of cells and tissue and nothing else. Instead of going right to the "it's a human" argument, the pro-lifer could say "Yes, I totally agree with you that it looks like a blob to me. I don't see any arms or hands or many other features." A way to ease into your position it to ask, "Have you every thought that even though it's so small, it's still a human, because it has human parents and has its own DNA? I'm sure you realize that the blob is basically what we looked like at that stage of our development."

If a pro-lifer is confronted with someone who is for abortion, possibly the best way to make your argument is to keep asking them questions so you can meet in the middle. Then you can eventually work your way back to the pro-life position. A possible dialogue could be, "So what do you think of partial-birth abortion?" Most of the time, they will be against that procedure. The next step is to work your way backwards in the development of the fetus. "How about a seven-month-old fetus that could live outside the mother's womb?" Often they are hesitant to agree to an abortion at that point. Finally, ask them, "At what time should be the appropriate time for an abortion?" When they get pinned down, then it's, "Why at that time and not a month or a few weeks from then?" You can move the discussion to the subject of what really is the unborn child.

One issue that pro-choicers think pro-lifers tend to ignore is that there are pregnant women in difficult circumstances. If these women give birth, the result will be dire beyond belief. This has to be recognized as a reality before the dialogue can be advanced. One way of doing this is to say, "Yes, you are right. Often there is not a perfect time to have a baby no matter what your situation is. There are many occasions when a young married woman is pregnant but is struggling with finances, school or career. Even someone who is financially stable and living in a nice neighborhood could have a difficult time putting a career on hold to raise a child. I totally agree with what you are claiming, but in most cases, the problems are temporary or one can learn to adjust possibly with some assistance." Usually there are personal stories that can be used to back up this argument.

Pro-choice advocates could improve their dialogue by not diverting the subject into another area that is off topic. An example is a discussion about the nature of the unborn. The diversion would be, "It's a woman's body or choice" or "Quit trying to force your religion down my throat." If they would meet the pro-life argument halfway, possibly they could see the reasoning behind the pro-life viewpoint. An example would be "Yes, I agree that the fetus at that stage has a heartbeat, but I still feel it is a woman's right to choose to abort it."


Often the person who is pro-choice tries to divert the discussion by attacking the pro-lifer personally, which, of course, gets the dialogue bogged down. They will say, "You're just a Christian!" or "How many babies have you adopted?" or "You're a man, so you'll never have to face this decision." Those rebuttals have nothing to do with them making their case about the pro-choice position and discussing the actual abortion of the unborn.

Of course, this all sounds like a fantasy pro-life/pro-choice situation, and it appears difficult to do. For instance, if a pro-lifer thinks abortion is murder and won't budge on that point or a pro-choicer thinks it's only the mother's choice, then it's not their nature to back down at all. I have seen this middle- ground method be successful in many instances. It cracks the door open enough so one side can see how the other thinks and also breaks down prejudices each has against the other. On the surface it seems that when you try to meet the other side in the middle you abandon your principles, but, in reality, if you can slowly move that middle to your end of the spectrum, then you have made tremendous progress. It sure beats chanting or yelling your message to someone who is returning the fire with their viewpoint.


An excellent resource to study this approach is a book titled "Common Ground Without Compromise, 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion" by Stephen Wagner. He delves into great detail about how to have common ground discussions concerning abortion.