joanna bai

Which Kind of "Wrong" Is "Right"?

With Dobbs returning abortion policy back to the states and consequently back to the people, pro-life advocates need to actively engage others in dialogue, perhaps now more than ever. In a “Classic Reprint” of a 2012 letter we sent to supporters this month, Joanna Bai illustrates how to listen to understand, make careful distinctions, and challenge people in a gentle way that helps them think more clearly. She also models the humble spirit we at JFA aim to bring to all of our work, being willing to say, “I was mistaken.” It can’t be overstated how important this is to help people feel free to adopt that same humble spirit. “Humble” is one of ten character qualities described in the Ambassador’s Creed from Stand to Reason. Our team reviews this excellent list every year as a reminder, and we heartily recommend it. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director


A large group was forming around JFA volunteer Lori Navrodtzke as she spoke with a student named “Julie” at our University of Kansas (KU) outreach last month [September 2012]. Intrigued, I also listened in.

Julie seemed opposed to our attempts to change people’s views about the morality of abortion because she believed that morals are relative. She explained that society sets moral standards based on what it thinks is beneficial for people. I requested permission to ask a clarifying question.

Joanna: From the little I’ve heard of your conversation, it sounds to me like you’ve asserted that we [at JFA] are wrong to impose our standard of morality on others. Is that correct?

Julie: Yes. That is what I meant.

Joanna: If you make that assertion, isn’t that action [of asserting that JFA is wrong] imposing your standard of morality on us? Your view does not seem to line up with itself.

In other words, her claim seemed to be self-refuting. She then agreed there was a problem in her claim, but only as I had presented it.

As she clarified her position, I saw that I had equivocated on her use of the term “wrong.” Perhaps she didn’t mean that it is unjust (morally wrong) to make a moral claim about abortion. Perhaps she really meant that we were mistaken (logically wrong) in claiming that there is any such thing as objective moral truth.

“Maybe she isn’t making a moral claim at all,” I thought. What she said next confirmed this:

Julie: You can say whatever you want about your beliefs, but those beliefs don’t make it bad for someone else to do something contrary to them.

Sensing that I had been missing her intent, I asked another clarifying question.

Joanna: Do you reject the idea of objective truth in general, or do you only reject the idea of objective moral truth specifically?

Julie: I only reject the idea of objective moral truth.

Clarifying this was extremely helpful to our conversation. In doing so, I realized she actually believed in truth and falsehood – just not truth and falsehood regarding moral claims. She believed there are such things as false beliefs, and she believed that one of my false beliefs was that there are objective moral wrongs (such as abortion). In other words, she believed there is an objective truth that morality is subjective.

She continued to clarify her thoughts.

Julie: I do believe in objective truth. Truth is that which can be proven empirically.

Now we were getting somewhere. She believed that truth is only that which is empirically proven (observed using the five senses). While my concern about self-refutation missed the mark with her previous statement, it was clearly appropriate now. I attempted to help her see the problem.

Joanna: Julie, can you empirically prove the statement you just made?

(In other words, “Can your statement hold to its own standard?”) Her statement about empirical proof would have to be proved by philosophical means, not empirical – but the statement itself didn’t leave room for any philosophical statements to be taken seriously!

This conversation clarified a number of things for me. First, while the denial of objective truth is self-refuting, the denial of moral truth is not necessarily self-refuting. Sure, if Julie had meant, “It is morally wrong to say any action is morally wrong,” that claim would have been self-refuting because the act of making the claim would violate the meaning of the claim itself. But Julie didn’t make that claim. By using the word “wrong,” she made it possible for me to confuse her meaning. She had actually meant that we were “mistaken” rather than morally wrong.

We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view.

As it turned out, Julie did have a view that was self-refuting – the very common claim that truth is only that which can be empirically proven. That’s a claim that can’t live by its own rules. So, unlike the claim, “You’re wrong (incorrect) to think there are moral rules,” (which is false for other reasons), this claim, “Truth is only that which can be proven empirically,” actually is self-refuting because one can’t know that the statement itself is true through empirical means. If the statement is true, then it is also false. Now, that’s a problem!

In talking with Julie, I experienced the importance of “listening to reflect,” rather than “listening simply to refute.” We need to be careful to try to understand what people mean before we accuse them of holding contradictory points of view. When I asserted that Julie’s initial claim was self-refuting, I was assuming I understood what she meant by “wrong.” When I stepped back and listened more carefully, it became clear I had misunderstood her. This further listening proved to be providential. By listening to understand her view clearly, I was able to ask better questions, which put us on the path of finding truth together.


Joanna Bai served as a JFA trainer from 2012-2022. This story was originally published in Joanna Bai’s October 2012 newsletter (“Which Kind of ‘Wrong’ Is ‘Right’ - How a Conversation at KU Taught Me to Listen”). See also Joanna’s “One Central Question Helps Change a Mind” which we featured in March of this year. Read many other excellent letters by Joanna and other alumni trainers JFA has had the privilege to employ over the years at the link below.

Featured Image (Steve Wagner): Walkway near the Governor’s Palace at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia.

One Central Question Helps Change a Mind

After serving at JFA for almost a decade, my sister Joanna Bai is moving on from her JFA work to focus completely on her growing family (she is due to give birth to another baby in March). Jon Wagner and I consider it a great gift and privilege to have been allowed to serve alongside our dear sister at JFA for so many years. The rest of the JFA team has expressed similar sentiments.

In this Impact Report we are featuring a conversation story Joanna shared in her March 2013 newsletter both because of the impact within the story itself, but also because it illustrates Joanna’s compelling teaching, her heart for mentoring, and her beautiful, clear writing – just a few of the many ways Joanna has impacted JFA’s team and mission. Please join us in thanking God for Joanna and enjoy with us this look back at His work through her. Thank you, Joanna! We will miss working with you! - Steve Wagner, Executive Director



Impact Report, March 2022

She started out defending abortion because of the plight of those in poverty. In just minutes, she said, “We really need to resolve the question of what the unborn is.” From there, I was able to help her find an answer. What caused the change?

I noticed “Jamie,” a confident young student at the University of North Texas, when she rode her bike up to the edge of the Justice For All Exhibit [Nov. 2012*]. It took me a few moments to decide if I would approach her. I’m so glad I did.

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

I asked Jamie what she thought about abortion. She told me openly, “Well, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like abortion. It just seems like difficult circumstances make it necessary. I’d say I’m pro-choice.”

“What sorts of circumstances are you concerned about the most?” I asked. She replied, “There are so many things. What about poverty? How can we force women who have no money and no resources to have kids? And how can we force those kids into such horrible lives?”

Jamie was raising an important point, but I knew that the fact of poverty itself wouldn’t help us discover whether abortion is a good solution to poverty. The conversation that followed illustrated perfectly one of the things we teach JFA volunteers: With abortion, there’s one central question we need to answer before moving on to other questions. I follow four steps to help people discover for themselves how central this question is. We call this process Trot Out a Toddler.*

Step 1: AGREE where possible.

Joanna: Jamie, I agree with you that many women have so little money and so few resources that it is difficult for them to be mothers. We need to be more concerned about those in poverty.

Step 2: APPLY the situation to a two-year-old.

Joanna: But Jamie, imagine a woman who is living in extreme poverty and who absolutely cannot rear a child. She doesn’t even have enough money to feed herself. Imagine that this woman has a two-year-old. Should she be able to kill that two-year-old because their lives are so difficult?

Jamie: Of course not. She cannot kill a two-year-old!

Joanna: I agree. Of course she cannot kill her two-year-old. And I know that question sounds a little odd on its face...

Joanna (left) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Joanna (right) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Step 3: ASK WHY the mother cannot kill the two-year-old.

Joanna: ...but let me ask you this: Why is it not okay to kill the two-year-old?

Jamie: Well, it’s not okay to kill the two-year-old because the two-year-old is a human being.

Step 4: AH! (The light-bulb moment: Discovering the central question, “What is the unborn?”)

Joanna: I agree. So it sounds like we don’t need to resolve the question of whether poverty matters. We agree that it certainly does. Rather, the question we need to resolve is, ‘What is the unborn?’ If the unborn is human like the two-year-old, then we can’t kill the unborn even because of poverty, right?

Jamie looked at me and I could tell she was thinking hard. She replied,

Jamie: That makes a lot of sense. I don’t know that much about when we become human, but it seems like that is the question we have to answer.

Most people will agree that abortion kills something, but whether or not we can kill a living thing depends first on what it is. Some pro-choice arguments address this question, “What is it?” and argue that the unborn is not a valuable human being. But others, like Jamie’s, ignore the unborn completely. Although arguments like hers raise important concerns, they assume that the unborn is not valuable. The four-step Trot Out a Toddler process helped Jamie realize that she needed to focus on the central question, “What is the unborn?”

Jamie and I continued our conversation for a few more minutes, discussing the evidence for the biological humanity of the unborn. We also discussed why we can have confidence that the unborn human has the same basic human rights that you and I have. Toward the end of the conversation, I was excited to see the progress we had made:

Jamie: You know, a lot of my friends are the ones protesting over there. [A number of pro-choice students had gathered with drums and signs to protest during the outreach.] But, I actually grew up in a Christian home, and my parents are pro-life. I don’t see eye to eye with my parents about a lot of things – for instance, I’m a lesbian – but I think I can agree with them about this issue. I think I can call myself pro-life now. I thought, by the way my friends talked, that you all were gonna shove anti-gay, anti-woman rhetoric at me. But I actually enjoyed this conversation. I really appreciate the way you all are creating dialogue.

I thanked her, and then she said something I’ll never forget:

Jamie: I have a lot of friends who have had abortions. And Joanna, you can see the change in them after the procedure. They carry an undeniable emptiness, as if they’ve truly lost a person.

And with that, she had to go to class.

Jamie’s barriers to being against abortion had been mainly social and cultural. She didn’t want to be identified with certain politically conservative views or certain “pro-life” people. The Trot Out a Toddler process was essential in our conversation because it helped her focus on the central question “What is the unborn?” Although this tool didn’t make the pro-life case for me, it helped Jamie and I agree about the question we needed to answer. It was just a short step from that point of agreement to Jamie’s moment of realizing that abortion is wrong because it kills a valuable human being.

* This story originally appeared in Joanna Bai’s March 2013 newsletter. See the links below to read other letters from Joanna. We owe the memorable phrase “Trot Out the Toddler” to Scott Klusendorf (prolifetraining.com) and the concept of “one central question” to Greg Koukl (str.org).


Joanna Bai: Selected Newsletters