Be Open to Letting the Conversation Change Topics

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes.

Learning to defend your deeply held beliefs is really important, but it’s easy to get into the wrong mindset. Sometimes we get so focused on supporting the arguments for our view and defeating the arguments for the other view that we get…well, weird. We can get into the kind of focus where we are so oblivious to the person in front of us, we might as well be arguing with a robot.

Apologetics is not an end in itself, it’s a means to an end. The end for which we use apologetics is loving people by seeking their best interest.[Tweet that!] Sometimes that means our dutifully studied arguments become unnecessary.

One of the traps that comes along with the territory of studying apologetics is getting into a “flow-chart mindset.” If she says A, you say X, if she says B, you say Y, and so on.

dialogue-flowchart

But the times I go on autopilot and I’m thinking too much about the argument, I lose track of the person, and often the point. This is why it’s important to respond to people, not merely their statements.

And this is why I’ve learned to let the conversation turn away from abortion.

Sometimes.

A Simple Change That Instantly Communicates a Nuanced Approach to the Abortion Debate

It was only two months after launching Equal Rights Institute last year before we facilitated our first outreach. We had our training seminar developed by then, but we hadn’t yet had the opportunity to design our own outreach tools. So we utilized our favorite poll table option that we learned during our work with one of our favorite pro-life organizations, Justice For All. The sign on the table asks “Should Abortion Remain Legal?” This sign always stops a good number of people who see it, giving us a chance to engage them in productive dialogue.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes.
On September 26th, 2014, Equal Rights Institute trained a group of Biola University students. Then on September 30th we brought them to CSU Fullerton so they could put what they learned about dialogues about abortion into practice. We set up the "Should Abortion Remain Legal" poll table the way we have for years.

On September 26th, 2014, Equal Rights Institute trained a group of Biola University students. Then on September 30th we brought them to CSU Fullerton so they could put what they learned about dialogues about abortion into practice. We set up the “Should Abortion Remain Legal” poll table the way we have for years.


This spring my friend Dr. Charles Camosy reached out to me to ask me to preview his upcoming book,
Beyond the Abortion Wars. It has now come out, and I would highly recommend reading it. We don’t always agree with his conclusions, but even the places where we disagree are well-researched, well-argued, and well-explained, and they help me to think more clearly about my own beliefs. Charles Camosy is a very unusual, very interesting voice in the pro-life movement and any pro-life advocate would benefit from wrestling with him.

While reading it I came across this section. These are excerpts from pages 26-29: (emphasis mine)

Quote

Don’t Be Too Nice

This post is adapted from a newsletter I wrote while on staff with Justice For All.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes.

dontbetoonice

“Gracious confrontation” is not a contradiction in terms; it is an essential part of mastering the art of good dialogue. I learned this in April of 2014 at a Justice For All outreach after two conversations in one day showed me that sometimes mere “niceness” isn’t helpful.

My friend Holly and I were having a very polite and productive dialogue with a pro-choice student when I noticed another student named Jeff. He had been trying (unsuccessfully) to subtly eavesdrop on our conversation. When I invited Jeff to join the conversation and share his thoughts, the tone of the discussion immediately changed.  He very confidently espoused a worldview marked by moral relativism, and he denounced everything Holly and I had said as ridiculous.

Back in my high school days, I was rude and pushy in conversations about abortion, so in my first few years of full-time ministry, I erred too heavily on the side of being polite. As I asked Jeff questions and very politely tried to engage him, he continually cut me off and met my politeness with aggression.

I decided to try something different.

Question: What Would Be a Better Word Than “Abortionist”?

I’d like to host a discussion in the comments below. The question is: what would be a better word to use than “abortionist”?

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes.
I imagine the discussion going a little bit like this, except it will be online and it won't be a stock photo.

I imagine the discussion going a little bit like this, except it will be online and it won’t be a stock photo.

UPDATE 7/13/15: There’s been lots of great discussion in the comments, from both sides of the debate, exactly what I was hoping for! My conclusion at this point is that “abortion practitioner” does the best job of not being rude and also not removing all stigma from abortion, both things I think are important. You can also read my thoughts on how we ought to think of “shame” as it relates to this discussion here.

We’ve talked a lot about language choices we make and our dislike of labels like “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” because people are more complicated than the labels we give them. Having said that, sometimes using labels is necessary, especially when writing.

Our general principle is that we try to use neutral terms, at least in public articles and at the beginning of our conversations with pro-choice people. The goal is to avoid hurdles that distract us from the most important questions in the abortion debate, what are the unborn and how should we treat them?

So you’ll notice even in this post as well as the rest of this blog, much to some pro-lifer’s great frustration, we use the term “pro-choice” when we need to use a label, as opposed to a more derogatory label like “pro-abortion” or “pro-abort.” I don’t think those labels are helpful nor accurately descriptive of most people on the abortion rights side of the debate.

“Abortionist” is a word that never seemed offensive to us, but others have recently said it is to them. This is a problem because needlessly offensive words can distract from the important questions of the debate. Any time we’ve used that term we haven’t been trying to be rude. We would like to find a better word for the medical practitioner who performs the abortion that is less offensive but still clear enough that people know what we mean when we say it.

For example, one common phrase is “abortion provider,” but that seems too vague. Planned Parenthood is an abortion provider. We’re trying to find the best word for the person who carries out the abortion. Help us out in the comments below.

As always, I want to hear opinions from both pro-life and pro-choice people, so a quick reminder about our comments policy: I will be deleting snarky and disrespectful comments.