Some of you might be thinking at this point, “That’s every conversation with pro-choice people! Their whole argument is that dumb!” If that’s you, I think you’re wrong on that. But if that’s your view, it also means this topic is even more relevant to you than to everybody else— it applies to literally every conversation you have with a pro-choice person.

But that’s not where the person who asked me the question last week was coming from. She knew a lot of the strongest pro-choice arguments, and she had a bunch of experience having smart, mutual, respectful conversations with pro-choice people. But occasionally, someone would say something that just left her speechless, like “I know it’s a human being, I just don’t care,” “A fetus isn’t biologically alive,” or “Yeah, it should be legal to kill toddlers too.”

If you’ve ever talked with a pro-choice person about abortion, you may have run into something similar—something that makes you want to say, “That feels so obviously wrong that I don’t know what to do to help you see it—it’s just obvious!”

I have two different responses in situations like that, but the first step is the same either way.

Step 1: Clarify

Clarifying what you’re hearing your interlocutor say is pretty much never a bad idea, but it’s particularly important when you’re thinking what you heard is crazy.

This could sound like: “I want to make sure I understand where you’re coming from. Is it ok if I repeat back what I’m hearing you say and then ask you to tell me if I’m right or not?” 

Or, depending on how far into the conversation you are and how much rapport you’ve built, it could sound like: “Wait, just to be super clear—you’re saying that to help curb overpopulation we should make it legal for parents to kill their toddlers if they want?”

If you can think of two possible things they might mean and you’re not sure which one they’re going for, it can also be really helpful to offer them both options. For instance, “I want to make sure I understand where you’re coming from, and I can think of two different things you might mean by that. Do you mean you know the fetus is a human being biologically, like that it’s a living human organism, or do you mean something more philosophical—like you know it’s a person with equal rights, you just don’t care?”

Sometimes clarifying will be enough—either because you’ll find out that you were misunderstanding them and they didn’t actually mean the crazy thing to begin with, or because the process of clarifying gave them a chance to reconsider and adjust.

But if you go through the clarification step and what they’re saying still sounds beyond-the-pale crazy to you, the next step depends on the answer to this question: Would almost all pro-choice people agree with you that what the person is saying is crazy? Is it obvious to everyone, or just obvious to you (or people on your side)?

The rest of this post will talk about the really extreme cases where it’s so obviously wrong that the vast majority of pro-choice people would agree that it’s crazy. My next post will talk about the cases where it feels extremely obvious to you, but you know a bunch of pro-choice people wouldn’t see it that way.

Step 2: When most pro-choice people would agree with you

If you trot out a toddler and the pro-choice person you’re talking with says that yes, it should be legal to kill toddlers, let me assure you that the vast, vast (vast!) majority of pro-choice people agree with you that that’s obviously bad. In fact, even the person you’re talking with might agree with you that that’s obviously bad. Sometimes, without realizing it, people say things they don’t actually think because they feel trapped. 

This happened to me once at a high school debate tournament. I don’t remember what the debate topic was (it wasn’t abortion), but my opponent based her argument on consequentialism, which (roughly) says that the end justifies the means. So during cross-examination, when it was my turn to ask her questions to try to poke holes in her argument, I brought up things like the torturous and often deadly medical experiments that Nazis performed on prisoners, without consent or anesthesia. The Nazis were (in part) trying to accomplish some genuinely good goals, like learning how to more effectively save people’s lives. There could even have been some particular experiments where mathematically, more lives were saved as a result of what was learned in the experiment than were killed in the experiment. So I asked her whether the consequentialist view she was defending meant that what the Nazis did was okay. And…she said yes.

I got a sweet, soft-spoken fifteen-year-old girl to say that the Nazis medically experimenting on prisoners was morally permissible. I spent most of my rebuttal pointing out exactly how horribly and obviously false that was, and then when it came time for my opponent’s rebuttal she stood up, started to cry, forfeited the debate, and said “I just want to be really clear that I don’t actually think what the Nazis did was okay.” She hadn’t said yes to my question because that was what she actually thought; she said yes because she felt trapped. I had backed her into a corner, she didn’t know how to get out, and she froze.

In a competitive debate setting, that was a kind of victory (though I definitely felt conflicted about it). In a setting where your goal is to win the argument, getting your opponent flustered so that they say something stupid and then feel like they have to stand by it can help you do that. But outside of very specific settings like competitive debate tournaments, winning debates is a terrible goal. It might help you feel intellectually and morally superior, but it won’t change minds or save lives, and it’s also just not a loving or intellectually virtuous thing to be trying to do. 

People can’t change their minds while they’re feeling defensive and unsafe. If you want a chance to change someone’s mind, you need them to feel safe in the conversation with you. That means you need them not to feel like you’re trying to trick them into saying something stupid so you can pounce on it. You need them to feel like they can reconsider and edit what they said without you making them feel stupid. For that to happen, obviously you need to not actually be trying to trap them or win the debate or make them feel stupid. But often, it takes more than that: often, you also need to go out of your way to be super clear that you’re not trying to do those things.

So: if the pro-choice person you’re talking with says something that’s really obviously wrong, even to most pro-choice people, one good step is to check whether they’re feeling trapped. You can check for that by saying something like: 

“There’s a thing that can sometimes happen in abortion conversations like this, and I wonder if it might be happening here—sometimes people can end up feeling trapped, feeling like they have to stick to something they said not because it’s what they actually think but because they feel like they don’t know what to say or how their argument could go if they take it back. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening, but in case it is, I just want to be super clear that I won’t think any less of you if you ever want to edit anything you’ve said—we’re both talking off the cuff here. And also just to be super clear, I don’t at all think you have to be pro-life if you say it’s not ok to kill toddlers. I know some really strong pro-choice arguments that are absolutely consistent with saying it’s not ok to kill toddlers, and I’m happy to give them to you.”

If you notice a pattern of people feeling trapped, or feeling like they’re not sure where you’re leading them in your abortion conversations, one good thing to try adjusting is to ask fewer questions. If you’re genuinely trying to make sure you’re understanding something they just said, definitely still ask those clarifying questions (offer them multiple options if you can!). But when it’s your turn to make your own argument, put periods at the ends of your sentences instead of question marks. That can help people avoid feeling like they’re being asked to agree to something without knowing where it’s going.

If you’ve clarified what they said and gently asked whether they’re feeling trapped and they still stand by it, one last move you can try is to point out that most pro-choice people are on your side on this one. If even that doesn’t shift anything, it might be time to end the conversation. I might say something like, “Okay, to be honest I’m not really sure where to go from here. I think we might not have enough common ground in some other areas to be able to have a conversation about abortion. I guess I’d just want to invite you to reconsider your view that killing toddlers is okay—I think the vast majority of pro-choice people would agree with me that it’s obviously wrong to kill toddlers.” I repeat what they said back to them a couple times to let it linger with them and give them as much chance as possible to reconsider later, and then send them on their way.

In my experience, at least in in-person conversations, it’s pretty rare that a pro-choice person says something that egregious and stands by it even after I clarify what they said and check whether they’re feeling trapped. It happens, just not in most conversations. What does happen in most conversations is that pro-choice people say something that sounds so obviously false to a lot of pro-life people that it can be hard to figure out how to respond. Next post, I’ll talk about what to do with things pro-choice people say all the time that feel so crazy to you you’re not sure where to start.

The post “What To Do When It’s So Dumb You Don’t Know What To Say” originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.”   

The post What To Do When It’s So Dumb You Don’t Know What To Say appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

When a pro-choice person in my social media comments claims that a fetus is a parasite, I watch countless pro-lifers pounce on them with the “just Google it” mic-drop. 

There’s two big problems with this approach. 

The Definition Usually Doesn’t Say That

When I “just Google it,” the AI overview that pops up says “A parasite is an organism that lives on or inside another organism (the host) and gets its food from or at the expense of its host. Parasites harm their hosts and can cause diseases, such as malaria. The term also describes a person who relies on others, providing nothing in return.”

The first website underneath that section is the Cleveland Clinic: “Parasites are organisms that depend on a host to survive and spread.” 

Then the CDC: “A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

Then Centro Médico ABC: “A parasite is an organism that lives in or on another organism, known as the host, from which it derives benefits such as nutrients or shelter, and it may cause harm to the host.”

It took me until the ninth entry on Google to finally get: “An animal or plant that gets nutrients by living on or in an organism of another species.” (emphasis mine) 

“Just Google it” reveals that most definitions of “parasite” from reputable medical groups don’t include the different species requirement. And I don’t think this is crazy; scientists widely agree that cases such as angler fish constitute same-species parasitism. So “it has to be a different species” isn’t an accurate rebuttal to the claim “a fetus is a parasite.”

They Might Mean it Metaphorically

But I think the bigger problem with the “just Google it” response is that it often misunderstands what the pro-choice person meant by “a fetus is a parasite” in the first place. 

Remember that AI overview from Google? “…The term also describes a person who relies on others, providing nothing in return.” That is what I find most pro-choice people mean when they call a fetus a parasite. 

They aren’t trying to claim that a fetus is literally a parasite. They are trying to claim that a fetus is like a parasite in a lot of relevant ways. A fetus takes nutrients from the mother, often making her very sick in the process. Pregnant women can be exhausted, nauseous, sore, dizzy, bloated, and gassy. She requires a higher calorie intake to keep up with what’s been sapped from her to take care of this fetus that didn’t ask permission to steal her nutrients. She can have headaches, bleeding gums, cramping, shortness of breath, dry skin, backaches, heartburn, constipation, swelling of hands and feet, insomnia, and carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Sure, a fetus might not literally be a parasite, but it sure sounds a lot like one. For the pro-choice people I’m talking to, nobody should have another person or thing feeding off of them, causing them this much pain and suffering, without their consent. She should be able to get that thing removed, just like she can get medical treatment to remove an actual parasite. 

Why I Care

As a pregnant woman currently laying in bed from dizziness and uncontrollable nausea as I’m writing this…I’m not going to lie. At 12 weeks pregnant, it feels like something has majorly gone wrong in my body. No, a fetus is not a parasite, but comparing a fetus to a parasite isn’t as insane as pro-life people would like to think it is. 

That’s why, anytime someone I’m talking to claims a fetus is a parasite, I start by asking this clarification question:

Me: “I want to understand your view. Do you mean that a fetus is literally a parasite, like biologically it fits the definition? Or do you mean something more metaphorical, like a fetus is really similar to a parasite in that it takes her nutrients without her consent?” 

I’d estimate 80% of the time, it turns out that they mean the second thing. 

Them: “Right! I don’t know what the definition is. I just know that women should not be forced to donate their body to something that’s basically feeding off of them!”

Essentially, by calling a fetus a parasite, they’re pointing to something we call the Right to Refuse argument. They’re saying that “what the fetus is” isn’t really the important question. It doesn’t matter because no one should be forced to let another entity use their body without their consent—regardless of whether the entity is a human person, a parasite, or something else entirely. A woman always has the “right to refuse” the use of her body to something or someone that is trying to use it. Especially something or someone that is causing her pain and suffering. 

Once I’m clear that that’s what the pro-choice person I’m talking with is saying, I spend several minutes talking about why that idea makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve been pregnant twice, and pregnancy can absolutely feel like a foreign object has taken over your body. You can get super weird symptoms. There’s comparisons you can make between a fetus and a parasite, absolutely, and I generally agree that people shouldn’t be obligated to help others with their bodies. But ultimately, the difference is that abortion isn’t just “not helping” another person with your body. It’s killing an innocent person. And that’s wrong.

If you want the details of the reasoning I use with pro-choice people to argue for that claim, we’ve published how to respond to the Right to Refuse Position many, many times, so pick whether you want a video, article, or reel from one of the links I just dropped.

But What if They Really Do Mean Biologically?

What we haven’t really published on before is the biological question. If I ask the clarification question and they confirm that they really do believe a fetus fits the biological requirements of a parasite, it’s time to dig into the biology of pregnancy. I’ve been tagged in several science-y social media influencers’ videos recently, so I made a reel explaining 10 reasons why a fetus isn’t a parasite. 

What a Parasite Is:

1. You never make your own parasite from your own DNA. I can’t link a source on that because it’s literally not a thing. It doesn’t exist.

2. You don’t have specific organs whose only purpose is to house a parasite. 

3. Parasites are a class of species, so something doesn’t “grow out of” being a parasite such that it isn’t one anymore. Thus, an embryo can’t be a parasite and then grow into an infant that isn’t a parasite anymore. It is possible for parasites to evolve over thousands of years to no longer be parasites, but this is rare (and slow!). Parasitism is usually an “evolutionary dead end” because parasites lose the genes they need to live independently. They most certainly do not have the ability to become non-parasites within a span of 9 months. 

4. Parasites offer no benefits to their host; women actually do experience health benefits from pregnancy, and many of these are extended or heightened by nursing. Such long-term health benefits include brain growth, increased empathy, increased productivity, decreased risk of breast and ovarian cancer, decreased risk of multiple sclerosis, decreased risk of heart disease, and—particularly in case of a vaginal delivery—easier periods. This is without fully studying the potential benefits of the fetal cells exchanged with the mother, which could offer regenerative or other benefits. 

Miscarriage and Birth:

5. If a fetus is a parasite, then when I gave birth to my first baby, that was a sign my body is a failure. My body failed at defeating a 9 month parasite invader.

6. And reproduction itself is a failure then, as if our bodies have some biological imperative to not reproduce!

7. If a fetus is a parasite, then miscarriage is a success story. We’d be telling loss parents that their bodies were just way better at “defeating” their “parasitic” children than the bodies of parents who got to bring their live newborn babies home. That’s a horrific thing to say. 

What Happens in Pregnancy:

8. Our bodies do want to reproduce; my body has spent the last 15+ years specifically trying to make pregnancy happen. Females release an egg cell on a monthly basis for literally decades. As ovulation approaches each month, my body starts preparing a good environment for pregnancy by thickening the uterine lining so it will be ideal for binding a blastocyst and thinning cervical mucus so sperm can penetrate easier.

9. Then when the egg cell does release, it includes a sperm-binding receptor called a ZP3 glycoprotein specifically trying to find a sperm to create an embryo. 

10. Once the sperm does penetrate the egg, the egg gives off calcium ions to cause a cortical reaction to prevent polyspermy, which is when more than one sperm penetrates the egg and the resulting cell isn’t viable. Polyspermy would result in the embryo dying, but my body specifically doesn’t want the embryo to die, so it releases calcium ions to prevent death.

I have never, ever had to go into more than one of these categories when I’m talking to a pro-choice person in real life. They always pivot pretty quickly to the Right to Refuse Position; they drop the claim that a fetus is literally a parasite and transition to metaphorical language. And I encourage them to! After talking through a few of these biology facts, I’ll say something like:

“It seems pretty clear that a fetus isn’t literally a parasite, but I do think parasites and pregnancy have things in common. I mean, when we think about parasites, we think about something taking someone’s nutrients and making them sick, and that definitely has similarities to pregnancy.” 

Pro-choice people aren’t expecting pro-lifers to admit that pregnancy is hard. Understandably, our movement usually chooses slogans and images that make pregnancy look beautiful, attractive, and doable. We want to empower women to choose life. I’m not saying we shouldn’t use those slogans and images; I’m just pointing out that our public-facing messaging rarely digs into the reality that every pregnancy—even a planned, healthy pregnancy in a committed relationship in a financially stable situation—every pregnancy involves some level of pain, suffering, and difficulty.

When responding to the claim that a fetus is a parasite, don’t shy away from the hard realities of pregnancy. If they’re confused about biology, then definitely gently explain the scientific facts, because a fetus is not a parasite. But do that while acknowledging that the metaphor isn’t crazy. Take a few minutes to talk about some common ground: maybe share about any experiences you’ve had with difficulties during pregnancy, or how you believe we need better medical care for pregnant women, or local and government programs you’d support to help pregnant women and parenting families. And then, you can respond to the Right to Refuse Position by arguing that the genuine difficulties of pregnancy don’t justify killing an innocent person.

The post Is a Fetus a Parasite? originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.” 

The preceding post is the property of Emily Geiger (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public,) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of Equal Rights Institute unless the post was written by a co-blogger or guest, and the content is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author Emily Geiger) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show only the first three paragraphs on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The post Is a Fetus a Parasite? (The Answer Isn’t What You Think) appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

In the abortion debate, there are a number of different ways people refer to the entity in the womb, and they all come with different baggage. 

It probably won’t surprise you that there are disagreements between pro-choice and pro-life advocates as far as which terms to use, but it doesn’t stop there! For years, it’s even been a debate amongst pro-lifers. After all, language can matter an awful lot when it comes to perception and psychology. It’s only natural for us to push for terms that we believe are most effective in helping our society understand the value of the human in the womb.

At ERI, we often get questions about the words we choose to use and the scenarios we use them in. I’d like to take this opportunity to give you not just an approved word bank, but also a look into our thought process.

Photo by Lunarcaustic

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Language Has Limits

If you’ve been around ERI for long enough, it won’t surprise you to hear that we believe labels often have limited usefulness. For example, a person who identifies with the label “pro-choice” could hold a wide range of beliefs, and you have no idea what “pro-choice” means to that individual unless you ask them. Similarly, many pro-life advocates can’t even agree on the definition of abortion. (Secular Pro-Life has done some amazing work on this, if you’re interested in learning more.)

All this to say, the terminology we use for the human in the womb is only useful if it facilitates meaningful conversation. If you spend your entire dialogue trying to convince your pro-choice friend to use the word “baby” instead of “fetus,” you’ve not actually moved them on the core issue. Similarly, if pro-life jargon such as “preborn” confuses or distracts your dialogue partner, they’ll have a harder time hearing your arguments against abortion.

A Review of Different Terms

Let’s continue with a straightforward analysis of common terms found in the abortion debate. This list is just in alphabetical order, so please don’t take the order as a value judgement.

Baby – In many contexts, “baby” is a perfectly legitimate term for the in-utero human. It’s the term used most commonly by people celebrating a new addition to their family, and apps that help parents track development during pregnancy cheerfully list every fruit and vegetable that “Baby” compares to in size. It’s silly to pretend that this isn’t a widely agreed-upon word outside of the abortion debate.

Within the abortion debate, however, it may not be the best place to start. If you’re debating the philosophy of what precisely the entity killed in abortion is and whether it has value, then using the word “baby” could understandably be seen as begging the question—as using language that assumes that it’s shared background for the conversation that fetuses are people, when actually whether fetuses are people is exactly what’s being contested in the conversation. If you want to keep the focus on your argument and avoid accusations of cheating, this term can be a bit too loaded with connotations of personhood and value.

Clump of Cells – Even if we don’t generally encourage folks to get in the weeds arguing about terminology, there are some instances where it’s worth redirecting your dialogue partner. If the word “baby” tips the scales towards the pro-life side, then the phrase “clump of cells” slams a heavy stone on the pro-choice side with its derogatory implications.

You can redirect in a friendly, disarming way by confessing that you don’t exactly get the warm fuzzies looking at a three-day-old blastocyst or joking about how you’re just a really big clump of cells at the end of the day. Then, ask if you both could stick to neutral terms so that you can focus on the main disagreements.

Fetus (or ZEF) – Okay, I’m cheating a little here by placing multiple words together, but these all have pretty much the same use case. Scientific words like zygote, embryo, and fetus (commonly referred to as ZEF) simply note the stage of life a developing human progresses through. In that sense, they’re largely neutral. It’s like referring to a teenager as an “adolescent” or a newborn as an “infant.” 

Developmental terms like this can also provide some clarity about what stage you’re discussing. For example, a pro-choice person might have more reservations about abortions during the fetal stage than they do about abortions that kill very early embryos.

It’s possible that your dialogue partner might use these terms in an intentionally dehumanizing or derogatory way (as Josh once described it, maybe they’re “using the word ‘fetus’ with stank on it”), in which case you can gently point that out and remind them that it’s really just a neutral stage of development, like born humans have. But I believe in most cases, a pro-choice person is using these terms as part of a good-faith effort at scientific accuracy. There’s no need to die on the hill of opposing scientific terms in the vast majority of cases.

Preborn – I’ll start by saying that I have no ill will towards the many pro-life activists who have been pushing for the use of the word “preborn.” If you’re so invested in the rights of tiny humans that you’re coming up with or using whole new words to try to humanize them, then I have to appreciate that level of investment. It’s great to try creative new approaches for communicating our message or influencing the culture.

However, I have to be honest and say that the pro-life movement has failed to “make fetch happen” here. This is a word that only hardcore pro-life activists use on a regular basis, and it’s usually just off-putting and distracting to the people we’re trying to reach. It communicates to your average pro-choice person that you’re so deep into the opposing side that you’re adopting niche lingo, and it often grates against them like a terminally online teenager’s slang grates against their exhausted parents.

I truly wish the effort to use words like “preborn” to influence culture was a successful project. But given that it’s pushing away the people we’re trying to reach more than it’s pulling them in, we’d suggest avoiding this one.

Prenatal – The phrase “prenatal human” is one of our favorite alternatives to “preborn.” It gets at the same concept that “preborn” does—if pregnancy is allowed to continue, the human in the womb will naturally grow into their next stage of development. It’s not the most common term, but it’s also not completely unfamiliar or jarring to a pro-choice audience, who have probably heard phrases like “prenatal vitamins” used in everyday conversation.

It also has the strength of naturally allowing you to insert the word “human” into the term. If your dialogue partner objects to your use of the word “human,” you can easily explain that it’s appropriate, since prenatal humans are uncontroversially part of the species homo sapiens. 

Unborn – This is another less scientific and precise corollary to terms like zygote, embryo, and fetus. It’s a good neutral word, and just about everybody knows what it means. 

“Unborn” has two advantages over “prenatal.” First, it’s arguably the most common word used to refer to the prenatal human. Secondly, it can be more naturally used as shorthand. If you say “the unborn,” most people understand that you’re referring to the category of humans at issue in the abortion debate, whereas the phrase “the prenatal” doesn’t have the same easy familiarity.  Of course, you’re always able to use phrases like “the unborn human” to lean into the humanity of the creature killed in abortion, but having an easy shorthand can help the flow of the conversation.

Let’s Talk About Pronouns

Don’t worry, we’re not taking a massive swerve into unrelated culture war topics. But just like the terms we use for prenatal humans, the pronouns we use for them can have subtle humanizing or dehumanizing effects, so it’s worth considering as part of this topic.

Something I’ve observed that is surprisingly common, even in life affirming circles, is the use of it/its pronouns for humans in the womb. I’ve even seen born babies be called “it” if they belong to a stranger and the gender is unknown. I can understand the use in some cases, namely in an abortion dialogue where the pro-life person is taking great pains to remove barriers to the conversation so that they have a better chance of convincing their pro-choice friend. However, on the whole, I’d really love for all of us to get out of the habit of using it/its pronouns for babies of all ages. They aren’t objects, after all.

This leaves you with a couple options: you can use “they/them” or “he or she.” Ultimately it’s none of my business which set you’re most comfortable using, and I don’t want to open an unrelated pandora’s box with this topic. I personally use they/them pronouns when referring to any person, born or unborn, whose gender is unknown or irrelevant. It feels less clunky than “he or she,” can refer to both individuals and groups, and has a minor fun bonus of sometimes surprising a liberal pro-choice person who probably expects that I shrivel away from singular “they/them” like a vampire in the sun. However, if “he or she” is more natural to you, I want you to go with what’s comfortable.

The Practical Application

Now that we’ve reviewed the terms, here’s how I’d suggest pro-life advocates practically utilize them in conversations about abortion.

Step One: Start Neutral

At the beginning of a conversation, the pro-choice person is probably still confused or mistaken about the humanity, personhood, or value of the unborn, so it’s best to start with neutral terms. Put yourself in their shoes, and avoid words that will be distracting. If they’re being transparently derogatory, kindly redirect them.

Step Two: Make Your Argument and Build Rapport

As the conversation progresses, you can probably (hopefully!) convince them that you’re a reasonable person who isn’t trying to trick them with word games. In some cases, you can even convince them on personhood and move to another topic, like bodily rights. Even if you can’t fully convince them of your argument, a good conversation can lead to them being less hung up on specific word choices.

Step Three: Transition Into Less Neutral Language

An important thing to emphasize is that this step is optional. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with sticking to neutral terms, and it might work better for you to stick with one set if you need to break a pro-life jargon habit or find the transition unnatural. 

That said, once you’ve built rapport or made a strong personhood argument, there may well be an opportunity for you to emphasize your pro-life position with non-neutral terminology. I have very good pro-choice friends whom I’ve earned the ability to switch terms with. I haven’t fully convinced them of my position, but we’ve done the work to bring down the barriers around terminology. I can emphasize that I think abortion violently kills babies, and they can truly hear me and consider the view seriously, without distractions and hangups. It just took time and trust to get there.

Arguments Are Stronger Than Vocabulary

As our former staff member Rachel Crawford once said, “if you’re trying to influence someone psychologically with [a term], you should just use an argument.” 

After all, dialogue isn’t about playing Jedi mind tricks on the person we’re talking to; it’s about seeking mutual understanding! One word alone cannot make your entire argument for you. At the same time, a single word isn’t likely to tank your entire interaction as long as you’re being thoughtful and intentional.

You may well disagree with me on some of the above assessments and recommendations, and that’s okay! What matters more to me is your posture when choosing your vocabulary. The way you treat your dialogue partner and respond to their concerns and discomfort is ultimately the most vital part of your conversation. Find the words that best help the person in front of you, and use them in love.

The post What Should We Call Them? originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.” 

The preceding post is the property of Ellen Campbell (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public,) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of Equal Rights Institute unless the post was written by a co-blogger or guest, and the content is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author Ellen Campbell) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show only the first three paragraphs on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The post What Should We Call Them? appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

No, it has nothing to do with a super-extremist pro-choice position or some high-octane philosophical argument. It wasn’t even an “open mouth, insert foot” moment by another pro-life activist. Instead, it was a display of painful, low-level ignorance.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

ERI’s staff was doing an outreach together with a club on a college campus (which will remain nameless to protect the guilty). Our poll table was a variation on the usual “should abortion remain legal” prompt: “Should Third-Trimester Abortions Be Legal?”

As it began to rain, we moved our table from the outdoors to our fallback space in the student union. And, I kid you not, I heard students conversing as we passed:

“How many trimesters are there in pregnancy, again?”

“Four, I think.”

So yes, some of the adults we were there to have dialogues about abortion with didn’t know the most elementary facts about pregnancy.

Obviously, broad ignorance about human reproduction and abortion is a generally bad thing, and especially in a time when multiple states are voting on abortion. But it should also specifically affect how we go into a conversation with a random person on the street, in which we don’t know anything about their knowledge or background.

You Probably Know More than Most People about Abortion

Here’s the thing: if you have spent time studying the issue of abortion or training as a pro-life advocate, you probably do know more than most people about abortion. Sure, those college students should have known there are three trimesters in pregnancy. But generally, abortion isn’t the kind of thing people are taught about; they need to seek out information. And if people don’t take it upon themselves to seek out accurate information, they can end up thinking all sorts of things about abortion that simply aren’t true. People genuinely believe, for example, that babies whose mothers are denied abortion go into the foster system as a matter of course (read here, they don’t).

Generally, becoming educated about abortion is the result of an intentional choice to seek out relevant information. That means, if you’ve chosen to study the issue, you will often have an information advantage over your dialogue partner. This isn’t inherently a good or a bad thing, but recognizing an information imbalance changes how you should approach a dialogue. In some ways, it means you have more work to do, because there are things you “should” be able to take for granted that you can’t, like a basic working knowledge of human reproduction. But it also means you have the opportunity to give people more information to work with as they assess the morality of abortion—and I think it benefits the pro-life side when people get more information about abortion.

Don’t Assume They’re Idiots

This should go without saying, but it needs to be said anyway: just because some people are shockingly, magnificently unaware of important details around abortion (or other issues), that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to infer that the person in front of you is ignorant, let alone that they’re stupid (after all, even extremely smart people are ignorant about most of human knowledge). Even if 80 percent of the population doesn’t know fact X (a wild overestimation to make a point), don’t go into your conversation prepared to pull out your chalkboard and start lecturing on X and how you need to understand it before you can form a reasonable position. On one hand, do you understand how ridiculous you’d look if you found one of the 20 percent who knows X as well as you do? On the other hand, even if your dialogue partner is in the 80 percent, no one likes to be talked down to, and starting with that will make your dialogue that much more difficult.

Instead, while you should be aware that people you talk to likely don’t know as much about abortion as you, this should just be background information tucked away in your mind. Use it to understand when you do need to take a step back and legitimately teach about something, but don’t try to turn your dialogues into classroom lectures.

The Difference Between Steering and Guiding a Conversation

I once had a seasoned pro-lifer remark to me that, because he had both an informational and an argumentative advantage, he could basically steer a dialogue in whatever direction he wanted. He wasn’t saying that as some kind of a boast, but as a point of frustration; he didn’t want dialogues to be academic exercises for the people involved, but a real opportunity for people to engage and change each other’s minds.

Have you ever seen something like this happen (perhaps while watching a debate on social media)? One person knows their stuff better, and they clearly “win.” Even the person they’re talking to admits they don’t have a response—but they’re not convinced. Maybe they think some trick has been played on them, or that if they were better prepared they’d have a good enough argument to win, or that their position is “obviously” right and as long as the right people confirm their view they don’t need to worry. Whatever it is, it didn’t matter that one side “won,” that the person with an information advantage could steer the debate wherever they wanted or walk all over their opponent; they still didn’t change the other person’s mind.

This is a hidden trap of having informational superiority: if you deploy it incorrectly, it will actually make it harder to convince someone. You can steer things wherever you want, but if your interlocutor is merely a passenger, they’ll probably walk away and revert to their starting opinion. The task of convincing someone through dialogue is to bring them with you; you need their cooperation, their buy-in.

You can use your rapport with your dialogue partner to gain opportunities to teach them facts they may not know, and, by teaching them in the right way, you’ll reinforce the rapport you have with them. If you’re talking with someone because they care enough to want to find the truth, even if they expect that the truth is pro-choice, they’ve bought into the process. By patiently providing the truth, you have an opportunity to guide the conversation without steering it.

What do I mean by “guiding” rather than “steering”? Here’s an example from one of my dialogues:

I was talking to a pro-choice college guy, and his responses leaned into bodily rights, so I let the conversation go that direction. I started asking him some of the “stock” questions about the sorts of things that must hold true if “my body, my choice” is taken seriously. Pretty quickly, at the first thalidomide thought experiment, he became uneasy with the implications of the pro-choice position. He refused to “bite the bullet,” but I had a feeling that he wasn’t convinced about the pro-life position, even though he didn’t like where the pro-choice position he held was leading.

So, I offered him a way out. I explained that there was another way that a lot of pro-choice people choose to ground their view that abortion is morally acceptable, and I offered to talk about personhood instead. He agreed, and he was visibly relieved. We got to continue the conversation for several more minutes before he needed to go to class, and we had the opportunity to talk about fetal development and the Equal Rights Argument. What’s more, he asked to take the ERI outreach brochure with him when he went!

I can’t say that I definitely changed his mind on abortion. But because I guided the conversation by trying to understand him as a person, utilizing the fact that I knew more about abortion to allow the conversation to go longer, I’m confident in saying I made a lot more progress than I would have if I let him walk away frustrated and unconvinced after I “won” on bodily rights. If I had taken the conversation where I wanted it to go without paying attention to the guy I was talking to, I could have steered it to grounds I was comfortable on and he wasn’t, but without accomplishing anything. The difference between steering and guiding is that I made the guy I was talking to an agent in the dialogue to the fullest extent possible—and I guided it as needed to make that happen.

Understanding People Helps You Understand How to Use Information

What’s the main takeaway? As always, we want you to treat the person you’re talking to, first and foremost, as a person. When talking with a person, you should be seeking to understand them. And when you understand the person you’re talking to, you can accurately assess how much they know, what else they need to know to form a more complete view, and how you can work together with them to guide that process of discovery.

The post Your Dialogue Partner Might Know Less than You Expect originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.” 

The preceding post is the property of Andrew Kaake (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public,) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of Equal Rights Institute unless the post was written by a co-blogger or guest, and the content is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (Andrew Kaake) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show only the first three paragraphs on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The post Your Dialogue Partner Might Know Less than You Expect appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.

Unfortunately, this scene is all too familiar to the pro-life advocates we train. In fact, one of the most common questions we receive from sidewalk counselors is how to handle “abolitionist” activists who act like this (or worse). It is often the case that no matter what the more gracious pro-lifer says;, the abolitionist will often get argumentative or just refuse to talk to the advocate at all, making progress nearly impossible.

Yet, after only one conversation with Sally, these two abortion abolitionists abandoned their bullhorns and walked away!

So, how did she do it?

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

Tip #1: Lowered her voice (and their defenses)

Sally approached very calmly and began speaking in the quietest voice she could muster. It’s a de-escalation tactic she’d learned from her fiancé, who worked in a jail; if you keep your voice low and quiet, they have to stop screaming to hear what you’re saying. And it worked. He stopped screaming and turned to listen to her, as did the entire crowd. Sally had everyone’s undivided attention.

Tip #2: Emphasized that they were on the same team

If there’s one thing he wasn’t expecting, it was someone who wasn’t pro-choice to approach him.

“I think what you’re doing isn’t really reaching people with the pro-life message.”

Sally quietly explained that she shared his belief that abortion is wrong, but that she was concerned that his tactics were hurting the pro-life movement rather than helping. When he retorted that he’s not “pro-life”—he’s an “abolitionist” striving for the prohibition of all abortions—he was immediately taken aback by her response.

“I want that, too. And it’s exactly because I actually want to end abortion that I think we need to be effective in our methods.”

Expanding upon their shared desire to end abortion, she suggested that bloodied signs like his are pushing people away rather than reaching them, and that reaching them is possible. Compassion reaches people; it opens them to change their hearts and minds. For Sally, as well as the abolitionists (and you’ll see how much that matters in just a moment!), there was one extremely obvious example of compassion: Jesus. Jesus’ ministry and teachings serve as a model for many things, but a particularly important one is how to reach people and transform their lives. Surprisingly enough, Jesus didn’t primarily use visual shock tactics and yelling; He reached people through compassion.

There are effective ways to reach pro-choice people, to change hearts and minds, and to save babies. We want to end abortion, and we know abortion abolitionists do, too. In this case, the example of Jesus and what will actually reach people…they’re the same thing. It’s compassionate conversations.

Tip #3: Followed Jesus’ example

That’s the second thing they weren’t expecting: someone who was a Christian to approach them. Of course, Sally doesn’t usually bring up Christianity in conversations about abortion, but in this case, she took a (highly probable) gamble that religion was a foundational driver for their behavior, and she was right.

They were caught off guard that she was the first one to bring up God in their discussion, and it took them a second to regroup. After one of them referenced a few Old Testament Bible verses attempting to support his aggressive methods, Sally asked a simple question.

“What do you think our mission is as Christians?”

The man fumbled around for a few moments before ultimately settling on “serving justice for the Church of God.”

“I don’t agree with that,” Sally responded calmly. “Our mission is to imitate Christ. Christ was not harsh; he was compassionate. He didn’t scream at the sinners around Him to pronounce that they were going to hell; He met them where they were at, in the mess of their sin, and called them to a better way of living.”

He responded by citing the story of Jesus turning over the tables in the Temple. Sally argued that pointing to this story, and this story only, from the New Testament ignores the totality of his ministry, where he looked with compassion upon the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery, who are arguably far more similar to the women of today facing unexpected pregnancies than the Pharisees are.

“So you don’t care about the Old Testament?” he retorted.

“I do care about the Old Testament,” she replied quietly, “but what makes us Christians is precisely our belief in the New Testament. The New Testament fundamentally changed how humans are called to understand God, as the Old Testament was fulfilled in the life and teachings of Jesus. If our mission as Christians is to imitate Christ, then how Christ behaved when He walked this earth must be the example by which we model our lives.”

Then, as Sally brought the dialogue back to this common ground and their shared mission to end abortion, the two abolitionists packed up and left. 

The reason they gave?

“We really have to get going, we have to return these rocks.”

“Return these rocks?!” Someone from the crowd looked incredulously at the few rocks propping up the base of the tripod, which were pretty clearly not an urgent matter to “return.”

I can’t sit here and tell you exactly why they left. I can’t speculate as to whether they’ll be back on campus some future Tuesday, or whether what Sally said made them honestly reconsider their ways. But Sally’s respectful and loving pushback made them leave that day, and it opened the door for the pro-choice students listening to hear an effective pro-life message. 

“I’m surprised you’re so nice!” A student from the crowd walked up to Sally after the men began walking away. “You feel like someone I can actually talk to about this.” 

About a week later, Sally was attending a Walk for Life to benefit the local pregnancy center when, lo and behold, the same abolitionists appeared on the sidewalk. There were no bloody signs or screaming tactics this time; they were handing out cards to the pro-life walkers that said #notavictim, referring to the concept that post-abortive women are not victims.

Sally approached, handed the card back, and quietly told him that she didn’t think this tactic was effective either. Almost the same conversation ensued; he brought up the same points, she kept her voice low and calmly brought up the same common ground and rebuttals.

“Don’t you feel a sense of urgency about this?!” he pressed.

“Yes, I do, and that’s exactly why I behave the way I do towards pro-choice people and exactly why I’m here today supporting tangible help for women. I want to actually change minds. I believe that your methods are causing further division, making people less open to changing their minds.”

“But don’t you think we need to change the abortion laws?”

“Absolutely we do, which means we must change the minds of voters. That’s my goal.”

He had no reply to that.

As he started inching closer to his car, Sally said she’d love to continue their conversation another time, and they could discuss more theology next time, too. She’d studied up on the Old Testament verses he’d brought up at their last meeting and said she’d be happy to chat through those with him.

The point.

Abolitionists only have two options to justify their behavior; hypothetically, they can prove that God wants us to behave this way, or they can prove that this is the effective way to end abortion.

But if our mission as Christians is to imitate Christ, then our behavior must be modeled after Jesus, who neither shouted accusations nor offered assurances that sins were no big deal. He accepted our brokenness with compassion while calling us to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” And if effectiveness at changing hearts and minds—actually ending abortion and doing so urgently—is our goal, too, then the behaviors and tactics that actually reach pro-choice people are of the utmost importance. The psychology of persuasion matters.

Here’s the thing: Sally understood the people she was talking to. She knew the kind of arguments they would make, but also the kind of arguments they would respond to. She understood what they cared about, what sort of things made them hold the position they did, and how to connect her pro-life position to those things. It’s the same kind of thing we do with the Equal Rights Argument: we show people who care about equality why abortion is a huge violation of equal rights. But if you’re truly listening to and trying to understand the people with whom you dialogue, you’ll find more opportunities to show them why their worldview should actually lead them to your position on abortion.

Sally’s courage to begin an ongoing dialogue with the abolitionists in her town got them to leave not once, but twice, saving potentially hundreds of passersby from further misunderstanding and detesting the pro-life position. And she opened the hearts of the students on her campus who did see the abolitionists by exhibiting wisdom and compassion.

Don’t be afraid to dialogue with abortion abolitionists or other “difficult” people, pro-life or pro-choice. Your witness can change minds.

Please tweet this article!

• Tweet: Compassion works. Bullhorns don’t
• Tweet: Compassion reaches people; it opens them to change their hearts and minds.
• Tweet: If you’re truly listening to and trying to understand the people with whom you dialogue, you’ll find more opportunities to show them why their worldview should actually lead them to your position on abortion.

The post Compassion works. Bullhorns don’t. originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.” 

The preceding post is the property of Emily Geiger. (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public,) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of Equal Rights Institute unless the post was written by a co-blogger or guest, and the content is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (Emily Geiger) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show only the first three paragraphs on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

The post Compassion works. Bullhorns don’t. appeared first on Equal Rights Institute Blog - Clear Pro-Life Thinking.