Why Rhonda Changed Her Mind About Whether to Use the Word “Pro-Choice”

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes.

We’ve been talking about language in the abortion debate a lot lately. It’s a subject I’ve written on several times before as well. If we want to be as persuasive as possible, it’s not only our arguments that matter, but the words we use that matter as well.

It’s not always easy for a pro-life person to go from using the label they’ve always preferred to a different one though. When we talk to people we form habits, and getting out of habits is always difficult.

I want to tell you the brief story of a woman named Rhonda who decided to change one of the labels she used to favor.


Rhonda with her husband, Denny.

Although she and I had emailed back and forth a bit a few years ago, I didn’t meet her until she showed up at Iowa Right to Life’s annual conference that I spoke at this year. She came and found me and told me the rest of her story, which was so encouraging to me that I asked her permission to share it with you.

Rhonda is wary of moral relativism, so she errs on the side of being very firm on what the truth is. This is why she challenged my use of the term “pro-choice” last year in an email:

One thing I’ve learned is that we must take back the language.  I noted your use of the word, ‘pro-choice’. I kindly suggest we refrain from using ‘their’ words to describe what is a barbarous act perpetrated upon an innocent baby. Using terms such as pro-abortion and anti-life are not only appropriate but accurate.    

I replied as follows:

Thanks for getting in touch with me, Rhonda. I think the question of what we should call people on the pro-abortion side is complicated.  I think there are some people who could accurately be called “pro-abortion” like some of the politicians and activists that have been in Texas the last few weeks. [This was during the debate on a Texas bill banning late-term abortions.] But a lot of people I know and talk to on a regular basis are not pro-abortion.  They’re pro-the-choice-of-abortion-being-available or pro-abortion-choice.  I wrote a few thoughts about that here and here.

After reading my blog posts, she wrote back:

Please excuse my delay in responding.  I wanted to give some serious thought to your articles.  First of all, I am coming from a position of standing against all abortion. This is a radical stance to many but, by no means do I feel the right to life should ever be an issue with which we compromise given that the very lives of the unborn are at stake.  That said I can appreciate the reasoning you applied to the term pro-choice vs. pro-abortion.  Galling as it is, in the sense that the issue is so black and white to me, I agree that in order to win friends and influence people we must be ever mindful that we do not brutally poke the bear we wish to tame.

I happily responded:

I really appreciate this email from you.  I’d rather someone take some time and give an idea some thought as opposed to feeling like they need to react right away. It takes me a while to change my mind on something.

I’m completely with you.  I’m against all abortions and I hate compromise. I think of this as calling them by a name that isn’t immediately offensive, and defining what I mean by it, so we can talk about the real issue: abortion kills a valuable human being.

Rhonda replied:

We are then, precisely, on the same page.

Rhonda gave me a big hug in Iowa and reminded me of this exchange. She said it completely changed her thinking about how to talk to pro-choice people, and is helping her to have better dialogues.


I told Rhonda that I’m always fascinated in understanding what precisely changes people’s minds about things like this. After reflecting on it for a few weeks, she emailed me to tell me what she had to realize for her mind to be changed:

Through your teachings and others who’ve come alongside I have learned that we must meet people where they are.  It’s not enough to be right.  We can have Truth on our side but if we beat the unenlightened over the head with it, can we blame them if they ignore our message, or worse, run away?  

This concept has been an important theme for us this year. It is possible to navigate the fine line of sharing truth in a loving way that won’t drive people away. You can read more of our thoughts on how to do that here.

Students for Life of America used one of the essential lines from the article to create a meme:

See this and other pro-life memes at Students for Life's Facebook page.

See this and other pro-life memes at Students for Life’s Facebook page.

Feel free to share it! We think it’s an important message for any person who wants to persuade others.

Question: What do you think? Does using the label “pro-choice” give up too much rhetorical ground?

The post Why Rhonda Changed Her Mind About Whether to Use the Word “Pro-Choice” originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blogClick here to subscribe via email and get exclusive access to a FREE MP3 of Josh Brahm’s speech, “Nine Faulty Pro-Life Arguments and Tactics.”

The preceding post is the property of Josh Brahm (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 Josh Brahm 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 (Josh Brahm) 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 paragraph 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.


Josh Brahm is the President of Equal Rights Institute, an organization that trains pro-life advocates to think clearly, reason honestly and argue persuasively.

Josh has worked in the pro-life movement since he was 18. A sought-after speaker, Josh has spoken for more than 23,000 people in six countries and in 22 of the 50 states.

Josh’s primary passion is helping pro-life people to be more persuasive when they communicate with pro-choice people. That means ditching faulty rhetoric and tactics and embracing arguments that hold up under philosophical scrutiny.

He has publicly debated leaders from Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Georgians for Choice, and one of the leading abortion facilities in Atlanta.

Josh also wants to bring relational apologetics to the pro-life movement. “Some pro-choice people will not change their mind after one conversation on a college campus. Some of them will only change their mind after dozens of conversations with a person they trust in the context of friendship.”

Josh is formerly the host of a globally-heard podcast turned radio/TV show, Life Report. He now hosts the Equipped for Life Podcast. He’s also written dozens of articles for LifeNews.com and the ERI blog.

He directed the first 40 Days for Life campaign in Fresno, resulting in up to 60 lives saved.

Josh has been happily married to his wife, Hannah, for 15 years. They have three sons, Noah, William, and Eli. They live in Charlotte, North Carolina.

David Bereit, the National Director of 40 Days for Life, sums up Josh’s expertise this way: “Josh Brahm is one of the brightest, most articulate, and innovative people in the pro-life movement. His cutting-edge work is helping people think more clearly, communicate more effectively, and — most importantly — be better ambassadors for Christ. I wholeheartedly endorse Josh’s work, and I encourage you to join me in following Josh and getting involved in his work today!”

Please note: The goal of the comments section on this blog is simply and unambiguously to promote productive dialogue. We reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, disrespectful, flagrantly uncharitable, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read our Comments Policy.