But What Is It?

But what is it? That’s the question that very rarely gets asked or answered.

I watched the portion of the debate between the vice presidential candidates that focused on abortion (pictured). That question kept ringing in my head, but it didn’t really get any time in the segment. True, JD Vance tried to get clarification on one “what is it?” question, related to the Minnesota abortion law: “What specifically does the Minnesota abortion law allow and not allow?” Indeed, it would have been nice to get a clear answer to that question. If we had, we’d have also gotten close to the edge of the question, “What is it?” related to abortion itself.

If the segment had led to the question, “What is abortion?” it would have been illuminating. Indeed, if we spent more time considering what abortion is itself, it would inevitably lead to the most important “What is it?” question: “What is the unborn?”

That question, “What is the unborn?” is the one that rings in my head throughout any exchange on abortion rights or women’s rights or bodily rights. It’s the first question we have to resolve in order to get any clarity about the others. True, the questions of a woman’s bodily rights or life-threatening pregnancy complications or what a just law would be on abortion are all important questions. But we can’t answer them without addressing this first central question: “But what is it?” Meaning, “What is the unborn?”

So, let’s say I’ve convinced you, and this question is now ringing in your head. Perhaps for you it’s even like a knee-jerk reaction every time the topic of abortion is discussed, as it is for me. But what do we do with this knee-jerk reaction? Do we insert that question robotically, as if it’s the first and only item on a meeting agenda? That won’t do. To win the right to bring clarity to the importance of this one question, our team has found that saying two other words many times and early in a conversation can sometimes make all the difference. What two words? “I agree.”

Find common ground about difficult circumstances confronting pregnant women. Find common ground about serious injustices violating a woman’s right to be free of sexual assault and other abuse. Find common ground about the difficulty confronting women who find themselves in a high-risk pregnancy situation.

We don’t only find common ground, though, and neglect to shed light on what is right and wrong about abortion. And that’s where our central question comes in: “But what is it? What is the unborn?”

So, here’s my suggestion: Remember the sentence, “I agree, but what is it?” Then use that as a structure for the conversation to remind you of these two important things to emphasize in the conversation. I’d spend a lot of time and energy on the first part, “I agree,” but I’d also work hard to not let the “but what is it?” question get lost.

So, when someone says, “women will die of pregnancy complications if abortion is illegal,” I’ll spend three to five minutes showing concern for those situations and agreeing that each woman is important in herself and not just as a talking point in a conversation. I’ll ask the other person if she agrees with what I’m saying. I’ll take time to discuss this. But then I’ll say, “It’s difficult to know which options to offer the woman, though, if I don’t even know how many people are in the hospital room with her. If the unborn is a human being, then that’s going to affect how we proceed in any life-threatening circumstance. Should she be able to get an abortion? Well, if the unborn is a human being, and abortion causes the death of that human being, then we would avoid abortion if at all possible in seeking to save her life.”

That’s the clarity that “but what is it?” brings to the conversation. I admit that it doesn’t answer all the questions about life-threatening circumstances. But it answers the first question, the central question that must be answered in order to make any progress on a solution.

So, the “what is the unborn?” question is like a gate on a roadway. You have to open the gate to pass.

Or, to put it in philosophical terms, it’s a necessary condition for getting to a practical solution. It’s not a sufficient condition - it’s not “all you need.” But it is a necessary condition - it’s “got to be there.”

Here’s another example: Walz emphasized in the debate that women need to control their bodies and make their own decisions.

I’m going to follow my strategy reminder I laid out in the sentence above: “I agree, but what is it?”

I’ll begin with three to five minutes of emphasizing how a woman’s right to be free from assault and other abuse is still important and still under grave attack all over the world. (I’m not talking here about how much time someone should spend on this in a debate, of course…I’m talking about the more common situation in which all of us find ourselves regularly, where the topic comes up and we have a choice of how to engage and for how long. In a formal debate, one could use the same strategy, but we would have to settle for putting it in soundbites.) I’ll emphasize my concern for safety of women and respect of women. At some point early in the conversation, though, I want to also make sure the unborn is not forgotten or invisible. I’ll ask some form of, “but what is it?” Is the unborn a human?

If we’re talking about whether a woman’s bodily rights entail killing the unborn through elective abortion, we’d better get an answer to the question, “What is the unborn?” I’m going to aim to spend an equal amount of time on this question, too: three to five minutes. (Again, in a formal debate we’d have to put these same ideas into soundbites.) I’ll aim to help the person with whom I’m speaking to see the unborn human with new clarity through images and arguments. (See the notes from session two and session three of our Love3 course for help on this.)

If the unborn is a real human being, as we can demonstrate that she is, then it doesn’t immediately tell us what to think about the right to abortion, but rather, it just clarifies that there are, in fact, two human beings in the picture, and each of these human beings, the woman and the unborn child, has an equal right to his or her body. Then we can move forward to consider whether the right to the body that the woman has means she can kill another human being located inside of her body, another human being who has a right to his body. In our work on bodily rights over many years, we’ve gone to great lengths to show that her right to her body does not entail the right to kill her unborn child. See our “It’s Her Body” series, which includes a 20-page response to the strongest version of the bodily rights argument for abortion.

So, remember this simple sentence to remind you of the strategy that will shed the most light in the least amount of time: “I agree, but what is it?” We find common ground because it’s true that the person is making good points, and it helps the person to want to hear the rest of our perspective. Then we move the conversation forward with some form of the question, “What is the unborn?” because that question is a necessary condition for answering the question, “Can I kill this?”

I’d like to mention that I owe this strategy to two of my mentors, Scott Klusendorf and Greg Koukl. I’ve probably heard both of these men say something very similar (or exactly similar) to the sentence, “I agree, but what is it?” many times in the past. I’ve been emphasizing it for the past 23 years. They’ve been emphasizing it even longer, since the late 1990s. For my part, I’ve been open to re-evaluating it or changing the emphasis or abandoning it. But it has stood the test of time and experience. Our team has tested this question, and the strategy I outline above, combining it with common ground, in thousands and thousands of conversations. It isn’t failsafe or foolproof. But it does bring the important first step of clarity to very complicated issues.

Without the question, “But what is it?” the conversation is mostly just slogans and noise. That’s not only a sad waste of time. It’s deadly, because the unborn child continues to be the last thing on everyone’s mind. Let’s change that. Let’s say, “I agree, but what is it?” and put the unborn back where they belong, right in the middle of the conversation about women’s rights and just laws.

"I'd Rather Be Aborted."

I saw this sticker on an electrical box near Planned Parenthood when I was sidewalk counseling.

“I’d rather be aborted.” “I wish I was aborted.” I’ve had people say things like this to me in conversations. I’ve seen the sentiment on a sticker on an electrical box outside Planned Parenthood and written on JFA’s Free Speech Board.

These kinds of statements demand a careful, compassionate response rather than a quick retort or an argument.

Sometimes I’ve heard pro-life people respond by saying something like, “Well, if you were aborted, you wouldn’t be here.” For many people, that was precisely the point they were trying to make: “I wish I was dead.”

For someone to say she’d rather be dead speaks to something much deeper that needs our attention. A person’s view on the killing of vulnerable human beings by abortion is important, and we do need to dismantle bad ideas and worldviews. It is equally important, though, to care for her personal life and experience.

A student wrote this on our Free Speech Board at Texas Woman’s University in March 2024

If a person can’t see her own value and would rather be dead, it’s likely she is going to have a difficult time understanding the incredible value an unborn child has. In my experience, most conversations about abortion aren’t purely intellectual. It’s not just about presenting good arguments for the equal rights of unborn human beings, as important as that is. It’s about so much more than this.

For those who may disagree with my response so far, I’d like to clarify that I’m not saying people must understand their own worth before they can see value in others. I think it’s possible for people to not see themselves as valuable and still respect and honor someone else’s right to life. What I am saying is that the fact that the person may not value her own life is an important piece of the conversation, and we shouldn’t ignore it.

The “I wish I had been aborted” statements could be coming from a suicidal place, but they could also be a way someone is trying to describe a painful part of her current experience. Pain and suffering wear on people and can lead them to use language that expresses a desire to die even if they may not literally mean that.

The personal, painful places in people’s lives often come up when I’m talking to people at universities across the country. While it can be challenging to deal with the emotional trauma people have, it’s good to understand those parts of people’s lives because those experiences matter. They inform how this person sees the world and how she views other people.

The truth is better understood and more easily received when people know we love them. Taking time to listen carefully to others and being slow to speak is a special gift we can extend to everyone.

Be willing to go slow with people. Listen to what they are saying. Listen to what they are not saying. Watch their body language and their expressions. Their stories and the reasons for their views are worth your time.

I think if we start with this relational approach with people, we will reach their hearts, and that in turn can make them more inclined to hear the intellectual arguments we will make. This can play a great part in influencing how they think about the value of their lives and the lives of unborn children. When we do this, I believe we will not only help people by helping bear their burdens, but we will also help foster a world that is safer for vulnerable human beings in the womb.

Once we take care to be relationally sensitive to the “I’d rather be aborted” statement, we need to focus on a question that is often overlooked in conversation: “What is the unborn?” That is a question that we must answer when discussing abortion because the whole issue largely hinges on how people answer that question.

People for and against legal abortion do not disagree that issues like poverty, abuse in foster care, not feeling ready for a child, and similar concerns are important. What we disagree about is how many people are involved in these situations. If abortion is not killing a human being like you and me, then only one human is involved, and abortion should be legal. But if the unborn is a human like you and me, then in every pregnancy we have more than one human being – the mother and the child – and both of them should be protected legally from violence.

Once we clarify this, I think it’s interesting to think about the “I’d rather be aborted” statement in terms of “forcing” a particular view of suffering on someone else since the result of abortion is a dead human being. Generally when people use the “forcing a view on someone else” language, it’s not accurate since “force” involves some kind of violence or threat of violence. Often people are accused of this when they are just having conversations and exchanging ideas in the public square. Having conversations isn’t violence. But abortion is violence. It ends the life of the unborn child. If one person says she’d rather be aborted, that view of life and suffering should not be forced on an innocent child via abortion.

One person may believe it’s better to die than to suffer. Maybe she wishes she had been aborted. It’s important to sympathize with her feelings of despair and not dismiss them. Since more than one human being is involved in pregnancy, though, we should also consider the rights and perspective of this other individual.

Maybe the unborn child will appreciate and be grateful for her life even in the midst of suffering. Maybe she will see her suffering as an opportunity to overcome and be stronger. We don’t know given that we cannot communicate with her. Yet. So who are we to force a particular view of suffering (that it is worse to suffer than to live) on her by killing her before she even gets a chance to express what her will and desires are?

If we can clarify that the unborn child is human like you and me, then it doesn’t make sense to use future suffering of the child or our own current suffering to justify killing her. What makes us think that we have the right to look at someone else’s life, judge how much she might suffer, and then kill her so she doesn’t have to go through the suffering? Someone else should not be given the power to look at your life and end it based on her beliefs about your future suffering and the best way to address suffering. In the same way, we cannot and should not make that call for someone else’s life

Only Two Questions?

Alan Shlemon has been one of my closest friends since the late 1990s, but after all these years, his answer surprised me. Late last year, our outreach team was about to sit down to dinner in his home, and I asked a version of this question: “What’s the minimum amount of training you think someone needs in order to have a successful conversation on a difficult topic?”

View fullsize

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason (right) interacts with a student at JFA’s “Stop and Think” outreach at UCLA in May 2016. Although we don’t know everything Alan was covering in this conversation, we do know for certain he was employing the two questions what and why and modeling the approach we discuss in this post.

Alan is a speaker at Stand to Reason (www.str.org), and like the trainers at Justice For All (JFA), he regularly equips Christians to talk about the most thorny and complicated topics in the culture. I expected Alan to say something like “four or five hours” since just one topic can bring up a myriad of facts, questions, and arguments, let alone all of the related topics people inevitably also raise.

Instead, Alan said he really only needed just a few minutes to teach people to use the Columbo Tactic. He was referring to asking questions that gather information and request reasons. (STR’s Greg Koukl named this tactic after the beloved, bumbling 1970’s detective who solved his crimes by asking questions.) That was it? All people need is to learn to ask a couple of questions?

I quickly realized, though, that Alan was simply reminding me of what I and other JFA trainers have been teaching for years: “Learn to ask two questions, and you can make an impact in any conversation on any topic with anyone anytime anywhere.” What two questions? The same ones to which Alan was referring: what and why. These questions help us gather information (What do you believe? What did you mean by that?) and ask people to give reasons for the claims they make (Why do you believe that? How did you come to that conclusion?). These two questions also “get us out of the hot seat and into the driver’s seat of the conversation,” as Greg Koukl has often said.

Now, I don’t mean you can ask these questions in any way and expect them to create productive dialogue. Obviously, we need to follow these questions up with “listening to understand.” We’ve also found that accompanying these questions with a desire to find common ground (“I agree… I think you’re making a good point”) and an attitude of humility (“I know I’m mistaken about some things, and you might have insight that will shed light on which of my beliefs are false”) helps the two questions make their impact. In this way you can also create a context in which the person is more likely to be open to a third type of question that challenges his or her beliefs.

So, if you’re afraid to engage friends or family in conversation about difficult topics, I suggest you focus on developing your ability to ask these two questions, what and why. How? Start practicing. What’s great about these questions is that you don’t have to do the heavy lifting. You only have to figure out what words need to be clarified and what parts of the person’s view are unclear (ask some question that begins with “what did you mean…?”). Then once you have the person’s view clarified, you can think of her view like the roof of a house. What does a roof need in order to be a roof? Walls. So you then ask the person to build walls that support her roof (ask some question that begins with “why do you believe…?” or “how did you come to this conclusion?”).

You can even practice this approach and these questions on topics that don’t have to do with controversial issues; I’m referring to the conversations you have with the people closest to you that become tense and frequently devolve into hurt feelings. Instead of assuming you know what your spouse or child or friend meant, ask “what did you mean when you said…?” Instead of assuming you know how she would support her view, ask “what reasons for this view are persuasive to you?”

I’m confident you’ll find that you can create productive conversations you never thought possible. In fact, people frequently report to our team during our campus events things like, “This was the best conversation I’ve ever had.” Sure, members of the JFA team have a lot of experience, and I consider them experts. But even someone with no experience, a conversation beginner, can experience the same extraordinary results. You can start today to develop these skills. Just focus on asking these two questions!

Thank you for partnering with us as we help pro-life advocates and Christians get started changing hearts and minds with simple tools like these.

Note: This letter is the third in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. See the previous letters in the series:

• “Be a Playmaker” (jfaweb.org/feb-2023)

• “Thinking about the Unborn for the First Time” (jfaweb.org/may-2023)

See Other Letters in this Series

Love One Another

Outreach at UT Austin, November 2023

One morning at Colorado State University, a student I will call “Heather” approached our poll table. Her demeanor was cold, and she matter-of-factly blurted out, “I believe abortion should be legal because many women will die in childbirth. Abortion should be legal for any reason.”

This conversation could definitely be challenging, I thought to myself.

Ellerslie Discipleship Training in Colorado, September 2023

I realized it was important for me to understand what was motivating Heather’s passion, so I began asking her questions. Heather shared with me that she had a rough childhood. Her mom, grandma, and several aunts were single mothers. She had watched them struggle as they tried to make it alone. I spent time acknowledging how hard that must have been.

 As the conversation progressed, I was able to walk through many of the pro-life arguments, and she seemed receptive.

After having a serious discussion about abortion, I began to inquire about her personal life. She was from a different state and had not made many friends at college. I could tell she was lonely and appreciated the opportunity to talk to someone.

At one point, the conversation shifted to spiritual matters. I had the opportunity to share the hope of the gospel with her, and we talked about why we need a Savior. She was quite open to discussing her beliefs with me. I asked Heather if she had a Bible. She told me that she did, but she had not brought it with her to college. I gave her the Gospel of John, which she gladly received.

Throughout the course of the conversation, Heather began to lighten up. At one point we both were laughing as she showed me pictures of her pets and shared stories from her science classes.

By the end of the conversation, I felt like I was talking to a different person. Her whole attitude had changed, and she seemed to be enjoying our time together. Before Heather left, she said, “Thank you so much for having this conversation. This was very meaningful!”

As I reflected on this interaction, I was reminded how important it is to show people that we care about them and to take an interest in their lives. Although Heather did not completely change her mind during our conversation, I am confident that she is more open to discussing pro-life issues. The first step in being able to reach someone is to show them we care. When we begin there, we end up having great opportunities to make a difference in their lives.

"Hey You! You're a Gender Traitor!"

In a conversation at Cal State San Marcos in October

I was in the middle of a conversation at Texas State University awhile ago, and a woman singled me out and yelled, “Hey you! You’re a gender traitor!” She proceeded to swear at me as she walked by. While this wasn’t a pleasant experience, when it came to mind recently I thought of Proverbs 20:5 which says, “The purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.”

Sometimes our lives intersect with other people at times when they are deeply suffering and struggling. When we bring up difficult topics they may react in very negative ways. I’m not saying that’s what was going on with this woman. I didn’t get to talk to her, so I don’t know. There are some people who just want to deride and attack those with whom they disagree, and it’s not a great use of our time to try to engage them. But that is not the norm. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt in these situations. We all have bad moments, and being on the receiving end of someone else’s bad moment gives us an opportunity to extend God’s grace to them.

I was at the University of Northern Colorado in September, and I asked a woman who was signing our poll if she wanted to share her thoughts about abortion. She put the pen down, looked at me, and in some colorful language basically said she didn’t care what other people thought so she would be happy to talk. I remember hoping the interaction would end quickly because I assumed it wasn’t going to go well. But I was wrong. It ended up being my best conversation that week, and I got to tell her about Jesus!

Proverbs 19:11 tells us that it is our “glory to overlook an offense.” I have found that if I don’t react to mean or dismissive comments, and I genuinely try to understand the people in front of me, I have a better chance to get to know them, their story, and why they believe what they do. Oftentimes this gives me the opportunity to challenge their false beliefs more effectively and point them to the truth.

Give people second chances. Third chances. Even fourth chances. Don’t give up on them too quickly. What is going on inside of people is like that deep well we read about in Proverbs 20:5. We are not going to get to the bottom quickly. Many people are angry, hurt, confused, and lost. That may make for some rough beginnings to our conversations, but that’s okay.

I am entering my fifth year with Justice For All, and I’m so thankful for your financial support and prayers that make my work possible. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “If there were no help from Christ, there would be no help from other human beings.” God works through you and me to help the people He puts in my path, whether I’m talking to students on campus, sidewalk counseling at the abortion clinic, teaching at our workshops, or meeting with local ministry leaders to plan events. I’m grateful for all of the opportunities I have to help others as they wrestle with questions surrounding why human beings, born and unborn, should be protected and loved. Thank you for investing in me. I couldn’t do this without you.

Is Abortion just a Choice?

After our team finished setting up at Colorado State University for the day, I walked over to our poll table which asked the question, “Should Abortion Remain Legal?”

A young man I’ll call “David” walked over and signed the yes side. After I greeted him, I began to ask him about his beliefs. He believed the unborn is human, and he did not like abortion. Nevertheless, he felt that abortion should be legal because he did not want the government controlling what we can and cannot do. Our conversation went something like this:

Outreach at Palomar College in California October 2023

Andrea: I agree with you that choice is important. Obviously, we live in America where we have many freedoms. It is important to be able to make choices as long as these choices do not harm other human beings.

David: Yeah, I get that.

Andrea: We probably agree that murder, rape, and child abuse is wrong and should not be legal, right?

David: Yes.

Andrea: We have laws in place against those actions to protect human beings from harm. For example, it is illegal for someone to come to this campus and start shooting because that “choice” would harm other human beings. It is the same with the abortion issue. Since the unborn is a living human being, abortion is a choice that takes the life of an innocent human being.

David: Wow! I have never thought about it that way. That makes sense.

Andrea: Another way to think about it is to imagine that we have two buckets. One bucket is full of choices like your favorite ice cream flavor, what degree you want to get, your favorite sport, and so forth. These would be personal preferences. I think we agree that we should have the freedom to make those choices. The other bucket is full of choices that harm another human being, like murder, rape, and child abuse. Which bucket would you say abortion belongs in? (Read more about how my colleague Tammy Cook came up with this two-bucket analogy at www.jfaweb.org/two-buckets)

David: Oh…I would have to say that abortion belongs in the bucket of choices that harm another human being!

I often talk to people like David who believe the unborn is a living human being and believe abortion is wrong, but also think it should be legal because they feel it is merely a personal preference. It is helpful to point out why abortion should be illegal. Since the unborn is a living human being, elective abortion kills an innocent child. Therefore, elective abortion should not be legal.

As we enter the Thanksgiving and Christmas season, I want to thank you for all your prayers and support. As I reflect back on all God has done this year, I am in awe. It has been incredible to see Him at work. It is people like you who make it possible for me to have these conversations and to help JFA behind the scenes as we work to train many Christians to do the same! If you are not part of my support team, please prayerfully consider joining by giving an end-of-year gift or a monthly pledge.

Secular Pro-Life Resources

It’s common for pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike to assume the pro-life position is inherently religious.

For pro-life advocates, we encourage them to consider beginning conversations with secular arguments in order to not put unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone’s way. We also ask pro-life advocates to consider that even if they hold religious reasons for their position, they can also hold non-religious, publicly-accessible reasons for their position that can persuade the masses in a pluralistic society such as ours in 21st century US. See, for example, Rebecca Hotovy’s “#Mindblown” conversation with Brian. Brian began with the belief that he could not support a law against abortion because his reason for his pro-life view was religious. He believed it was wrong to put his religious view into law. Rebecca Hotovy deftly showed him that he also held his position for a reason that didn’t rely on explicitly religious support: it’s wrong and should be illegal to harm someone else.

For pro-choice advocates, we encourage them to consider the fact that there are many pro-life advocates who are agnostics or atheists. The gutsy new presidential candidate Terrisa Bukovinac is one high-profile example. The apologists at Secular Pro-Life are examples as well. Many of the folks at Libertarians for Life are also non-religious.

For pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike, we recommend the following resources from these atheistic and agnostic pro-life advocates. While we don’t agree with the atheism or agnosticism of the authors of these resources, they nonetheless contain many good arguments and truth claims, and they can help religious pro-life advocates frame their arguments in ways that are more persuasive to the average non-religious person. This is right in line with our emphasis on finding common ground when possible.

• “Later Abortion”: Very helpful microsite filled with links and research curated by Secular Pro-Life to show that “There is no quantifiable data to support the idea that all or even most later abortions are medically necessary.” It includes a collection of data on the reasons women opt for later abortion. This helps us respond to claims that “no late-term abortion is elective.”

• “Embryonic Hearts”: This microsite demonstrates that the unborn has a primitive heartbeat from very early in development and describes the development of the heart from scientific textbooks.

• Resources from Secular Pro-Life Related to the Question of Rape

• “I’m an Emergency Physician. Pro-Life Laws Don’t Threaten My Patients.” One doctor’s perspective on abortion restrictions in Texas since Dobbs.

• Guardian article “What a pregnancy actually looks like” erases embryos

• Responding to 16 pro-choice claims about Dobbs, the pro-life movement, and abortion bans

• Why artificial wombs pose a challenge to pro-choice personhood arguments

• The pro-choice view survives on widespread ignorance of biology

Dinner and a Dialogue

At Justice For All, we are passionate about creating a space for healthy dialogue about divisive issues. While most of our conversations are centered around abortion, our training skills are applicable to any situation where disagreement exists.

After losing some friends over political disagreements, Ted Wetzler, an Ohio resident, started an organization called "Dinner and a Fight," with the word "fight" crossed out and replaced with "dialogue." He brings people together for a meal with all different viewpoints and helps foster good communication and understanding. His organization is worth checking out!

To learn skills for having productive dialogue about abortion, and by extension, any controversial issue, take our online Love3 workshops.

Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time

Stacey walked up to our outreach signs looking curious. We were standing on a busy walkway at Palomar College (CA) in December. I asked a few questions about her thoughts on abortion, and she clarified that she thought abortion should be legal until birth. Here’s my recollection of the rest of the conversation:

Steve: Do you believe abortion should be legal because you believe a woman has a right to her body?

Stacey: Yes. A woman’s right to her body is really important to me.

Steve: I agree that a woman has a right to her body, generally speaking, and I agree that’s really important. Women’s bodily rights have been trampled on and continue to be trampled on throughout the world with practices like slavery, rape, and domestic violence. I think those things are horrific and wrong.

View fullsize

Palomar College Outreach in December 2022: Steve (center, black shirt) and other JFA staff members interact with students.

Stacey: I agree.

Steve: Do you agree with me that a woman’s bodily rights are not simply created or determined by the state? Instead, they’re fundamental. They’re like other human rights. If the state didn’t protect those rights, the state would be wrong.

Stacey: Yes, that’s true.

View fullsize

Pages 4-5 of JFA’s Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.

Steve: I have some pictures over here that might be helpful to our conversation. [I showed her the signs that show pages four and five of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.] Look at this young woman pictured here. Can we agree that she has bodily rights that the state should respect?

Stacey: I agree with that.

View fullsize

JFA’s setup at the National Mall on April 26-27 included the signs Steve referred to in his conversation with Stacey.

Steve: Now, what about this toddler? I assume we would agree he shouldn’t be killed. Can we agree he has bodily rights that are fundamental?

Stacey: Yes.

Steve: So the woman and the toddler have the same bodily rights. And those rights are fundamental, so the situation would have to reach a really high bar to justify limiting something so important as a person’s bodily rights. Perhaps the only legitimate way the state could limit those rights is if these people were using their bodies to take away someone else’s bodily rights.

Stacey: That’s a good point.

Steve: Does it make sense to you that if their rights are fundamental, they had them from the moment they began to exist? When did this toddler begin to exist?

Stacey: That makes sense, but I guess I’m not sure. What do you think?

Steve: Well, from fertilization [pointing at image on sign], when the sperm and the egg came together, both ceased to exist, and a new organism came into existence. All that’s been added from then until the toddler stage is food. If we have something as important as fundamental human rights now, I don’t think we could gain those rights by eating. So, I think the woman and the toddler began to exist at fertilization, and that’s also when they gained their fundamental right to their bodies. But that would mean that the embryo has a fundamental right to his body just like the toddler and the woman.

Our conversation continued for ten minutes or so. (Indeed, Stacey contributed much more detailed responses than what my memory has allowed me to include here.) We discussed how the embryo is very different from us (in looks and functions) but is also the same kind of being that we are—a being with the same human nature we have. If this is true, the woman’s fundamental right to her body would not include the right to abortion, because then abortion would be killing a human being with the same bodily rights.

As Stacey got ready to move on from the conversation, she eagerly accepted a copy of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure that included the same pictures we had been discussing. What she said in parting really surprised me:

Stacey: I never thought about the fetus as a separate person—that it has its own rights we would be taking away. I’ll have to think about that!

At the beginning of this conversation, Stacey sounded completely pro-choice, and frankly, I think I suspected she wouldn’t have much interest in an alternative opinion. She showed the exact opposite throughout our conversation. It’s a lesson I’ve learned again and again: Don’t make assumptions from appearances.

As I found common ground with Stacey repeatedly about bodily rights, showing relational sensitivity to the emotionally heavy topic of what a woman can do with her body, I think she became open to my perspective about the unborn child. That’s the sequence we teach any chance we can: Be relational…then be intellectual. That approach helped Stacey to consider the possibility there was a whole other person involved in the abortion question, and she showed genuine interest in thinking further about that.

---

Note: This letter is the second in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. See “Be a Playmaker” (Feb. 2023) for the first in the series. (March 2024 Update: The third letter in the series, “Only Two Questions?” has just been published. Read it here.)

See the Letters in this Series

Be a Playmaker

Banner: Photo by Jeffrey F Lin on Unsplash

I was playing soccer with my kids recently and something happened twice during our game that sticks in my memory. In both instances, I was only about halfway across our front yard soccer field and received a pass in the center. In order to have a better chance of surprising the other team (a worthy aim), I fired the ball towards the goal without trapping the ball first. One touch. Sadly, in both cases my decision to be a hotshot led to missing the goal completely. I gave the other team a goal kick.

We saw the same mistake multiple times in the World Cup a few months ago. A player would take a shot from too far out, or he would try to dribble through five defenders. He acted like he was a one-man show, and his whole team paid for it with a missed opportunity.

Contrast this with a different approach to the game, one in which the player looks to be a “playmaker.” He is satisfied to pass the ball to another player who has a better angle and can move the ball down the field by passing to yet another player who sends it on to another player, and because each player was satisfied to play his part, the ball ends up in the net.

It’s the same in our conversations about abortion. We’re aiming to help the person change his or her mind completely, meaning he or she develops a hatred for elective abortion and a willingness to act to change the hearts and minds of others. But our job in each conversation is to see ourselves as a part of a team, a network of advocates who influence a person in successive opportunities that God provides.

This gives us great comfort just as it gives us our marching orders. If we don’t see the goal reached during our conversation, we are satisfied to give the person something to think about—a pebble in the shoe, as Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason says (see str.org for more).

If our personal, individual purpose in the “game,” then, isn't necessarily to see the end goal accomplished but rather to take the opportunity God gives us and to “move the ball forward” for the person with whom we’re talking, this helps us assess our performance. Did we represent Christ well? Did we use His manner? Were we skillfully maneuvering in conversation in a way that sought to help the person be more likely to change his or her mind as soon as possible?

If I had been more patient in my soccer game with my kids, I would have been satisfied to move the ball around the field more and more as we got closer and closer to the goal. Ironically, it is this approach that would have put the ball in the back of the net more quickly.

This is one of the things we teach volunteers so they don’t get discouraged. We encourage them to keep the goal in view and to be satisfied to play their part. This is more realistic, and it places only the appropriate level of burden on the volunteer. This approach is better for volunteers, and it will also accomplish the goal of making abortion unthinkable more completely for more people. We patiently see ourselves as members of a team, serving under the direction of one Coach, and we are satisfied to ask the right question or present the bit of evidence that seems most helpful in the moment. This gives the person the best opportunity to reconsider his or her perspective, many times completely apart from our watchful eye.

March 2024 Update: This letter is the first in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. The second in the series was published in May 2023 (“Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time”), and the third in the series was published in March 2024 (“Only Two Questions?”).

See the Other Letters in this Series

---

Recent Presentation at SFLA’s National Pro-Life Summit

What did Kristina Massa share with 2000 people? Watch the presentation at www.youtube.com/picturejusticeforall

---

Recent and Upcoming Events

1/21 Presentation—National Pro-Life Summit—Kristina, Steve

1/21 Presentation—Anglicans for Life Summit—Steve

1/23-25 Outreach—Fullerton College—Jon, Jeremy, Rebekah, Andrea

1/20-22 Deeper Still Retreat—Kaitlyn

1/31 Outreach—Univ. of Texas, Austin—Jon, Jeremy

2/11 Interactive Seminar—Christ Community Church—Kristina, Andrea, Rebekah, Steve

2/12 Presentations—Christ Community Church—Andrea, Rebekah, Steve

2/13-15 Outreach—Univ. of Arizona—Kristina, Paul, Steve, Andrea, Rebekah

2/16-17 Interactive Workshops—San Francisco Area, California—Kristina

2/20-23 Outreach—Univ. of Texas at San Antonio & Texas State Univ.—Jeremy, Kaitlyn, Jon, Mary

3/2 Outreach—Palomar College in Southern California—Rebekah

3/5-8 Seminar and Outreach Events in Albuquerque, New Mexico—Paul, Rebekah, Jeremy, Kristina, Andrea

3/13-15 Love3 Online Interactive Workshops (Register Now!)—JFA Training Team

3/19-22 Seminar and Outreach Events in Wichita, Kansas—Paul, Jon, Kristina, Tammy

3/31-4/5 Seminar and Outreach Events in Colorado—Durango, Colorado Springs, and Alamosa—JFA Training Team

---

Recent Outreach Event at University of Arizona

See pictures of recent events at www.instagram.com/picturejusticeforall

Watch Kristina Massa present to 2000 people at SFLA's National Pro-Life Summit 2023

We are very proud of Kristina Massa, who presented to 2000 people at the National Pro-Life Summit on January 21. Kristina did a beautiful job helping the audience see some of the essentials of good dialogue through stories of her conversations on campus. I had the privilege of joining her on the platform to model good dialogue for the audience. You can watch the presentation above or click this link for SFLA’s video post.

Three Tips for Helping Volunteers Stay Active for the Long-Term

1. Clarify What and Why.

2. Keep the Goal in View, but Be Satisfied to Do Your Part.

3. Be Relational, then Be Intellectual.

More Helpful Links:

Read the series of letters Steve wrote to explain the tips listed above:

Does the Bible Say Anything about Abortion?

Years ago, I received this email from a friend*:

“My secretary is a very wonderful Christian sister. Her daughter is 37 and pregnant and she is considering having an abortion. Unfortunately her daughter talked with an uninformed person who said the Bible doesn't address the topic of abortion.” [Identifying details have been removed.]

I fired off the following response without much editing and found out the next day that this simple Biblical defense against abortion, along with accurate pictures of abortion and the mother’s persistent expression of concern, persuaded the 37 year-old not to abort her child.

---

The Bible does address abortion as directly as it addresses the killing of toddlers. Neither is specifically mentioned, but it is clear from the following passages that human beings are made with a special dignity as part of their nature.

Gen. 1:26-28 *

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (v. 27) God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen. 9:6-7

‘Whoever sheds man's blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man.

‘As for you, be fruitful and multiply;

Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.’ ”

James 3:8-10

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”

And if our dignity is part of our nature, we have that dignity from the moment we begin to exist. And because it is clear scientifically that there is no essential change in the human organism from conception to natural death, the unborn must also have the same dignity we ourselves have.

So, Scripture does directly deal with abortion in the sense that abortion kills an innocent human being (if anyone questions whether abortion kills, they should consult abortion photos at www.abort73.com) and killing an innocent human being is seriously wrong no matter the stage of development, degree of dependency, or appearance of the child. Because the unborn is a human being (see “No One Knows When Life Begins” (Chapter 3) for a simple defense of the humanity of the unborn), all of the verses in the Old and New Testaments condemning the shedding of innocent blood and commanding us to protect the weak apply also to the unborn:

Ex. 20:13

“You shall not murder.”

Ex. 23:7

“You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute.

“Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

“You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.”

Deut. 19:10-13

“Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.”

Prov. 24:10-12

“If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Prov. 6:16-19

“There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.”

Prov. 31:8-9

“Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”

Matt. 19:16-19

“And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matt. 28:19-20

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Sometimes abortion advocates point to Exodus 21:22, saying it directly supports abortion. To see why the verse is actually a defense of the pro-life position, see Greg Koukl’s excellent article, “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion” (linked below). See also Scott Klusendorf’s “Dead Silence: Must the Bible Say Abortion is Wrong Before We Can Know that It’s Wrong?” for an incisive treatment of the Exodus passage as well as a response to the argument from Biblical silence on abortion.

(Note: I wrote the above years ago. Recently, through a World Magazine article by Leah Savas, I’ve become aware of another Biblical passage people are citing to justify abortion: Numbers 5:27. Alan Shlemon’s response is helpful: “Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?”)

* Note: All References: New American Standard Bible (Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA 1995). Emphasis added.

An earlier version of this article appeared at Stand to Reason under the title, “Does the Bible Have Anything to Say About Abortion?”

---

Resources to Help:

• Steve Wagner, “Does the Bible Say Anything about Abortion?” (Printable version of this post)

• Greg Koukl “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion”

• Scott Klusendorf “Dead Silence: Must the Bible Say Abortion is Wrong Before We Can Know that It’s Wrong?”

• Alan Shlemon: “Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?”

Raw from the Fallout of Dobbs?

Towards the end of a recent Love3 online workshop, one participant I’ll call “Sabrina” startled me with these words: “Now I have to find a new place to live.”

Sabrina’s roommate had seen her support for the Dobbs decision on social media and said, “We need to talk.” She made it clear she no longer felt comfortable living with Sabrina, so Sabrina needed to move out.

My heart ached for Sabrina. What an unfortunate result of her reasonable rejoicing over a good Supreme Court decision! For those of us who share Sabrina’s support of Dobbs and strong opposition to legal abortion, it’s perhaps easy to sympathize with her pain of loss. This situation causes me also, though, to sympathize with Sabrina’s friend and others who are feeling so raw from the Dobbs decision that they’d be willing to lose friends over it. Many see abortion as a fundamental right and when it becomes clear that this “right” is not only no longer recognized by the Supreme Court but also not even recognized by those thought to be friends, it can be especially painful.

How should we respond to pro-life and pro-choice people in our acquaintance as they experience fallouts from the Dobbs opinion? One strategy some Christians are following is to simply avoid the topic of unwanted pregnancy and abortion altogether. If we follow this avoidance strategy, we aren’t really serving anyone – not the unborn, not the women and men struggling with past abortions who need to heal, not friends who need more conversation about spiritual topics, and not the Christians who have a special opportunity to make a difference right now.

Dobbs has provided perhaps the best opportunity of the past few decades to discuss unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and the intrinsic value of every human being. As our team embarks on a busy fall with a number of outreach events, I am looking forward to discovering if my hunch about Dobbs is correct. I suspect that the Supreme Court’s decision to return the abortion question to the states will motivate great numbers of people to engage in discussion for the first time.

Sure, if I’m right and people are ready to talk, and if I’m also right that many are sad, angry, and otherwise “raw” from the Dobbs opinion, the conversations will be difficult. But I’d much rather have a difficult conversation than no conversation at all. Getting meaningful conversations started with the millions of people who have been too apathetic to engage has been one of our chief struggles. If it’s true that they will now engage, we must not waste this moment when they are ready.

Think of the unborn children who have been getting the “raw end of the deal” for decades under the Roe and Casey regimes (and still under Dobbs in many, many states) when they are killed by abortion. Whether this reality leaves our emotions “raw” or not, how should we respond?

Instead of glibly flaunting the Dobbs opinion with a smug sense of victory, with no goal of dialogue, we should indeed start conversations, and we should begin with concern for the feelings of those who disagree. Then we should fearlessly offer reasons that compel any person who cares about human rights to include unborn children in their circle of concern. Instead of shrinking back, fearful of making a mistake, we should prepare our minds and hearts, then spend time praying for God’s help. With that foundation, we trust God to use each encounter, however complicated by emotions, for the good of each person and for the purposes of God’s kingdom.

We invite you to join us during our Love3 Workshops beginning September 15 (or at other events in your area – see below) to get equipped for this important task ahead of each of us.

Thank you for praying for us and partnering with us as we train Christians and other pro-life advocates to infuse these dark conversation spaces with the light of love and the light of truth.

Image by Andraz Lazic on Unsplash

---

Recent Articles and Posts by JFA Trainers

Recent Instagram post @picturejusticeforall

To Christians Upset About Roe’s Reversal – R. Dyer

What Now? – J. Gorr

Roe v. Wade Overturned – JFA Team

Attitude Can Make or Break... – R. Hotovy

Two Buckets, Take 2 – T. Cook

Question Helps Change a Mind – J. Bai

---

Recent and Upcoming Events—Fall 2022

8/27 Seminar (Wichita, KS)

8/29-30 Outreach at Wichita State (KS)

9/4 Presentation (Canton, OH)

9/8 Workshop (Denver, CO)

9/10 Seminar (Windsor, CO)

9/11 Seminar (Fort Collins, CO)

9/12-14 Outreach, Colorado State (Fort Collins, CO)

9/15 Love3 Workshops Begin (Online)

9/17 Seminar (Rogers, AR)

9/18 Seminar (Bentonville, AR)

9/18 Workshop (Ogallala, NE)

9/25 Workshop (Owosso, MI)

October Workshops in DC, TX, OH

October Outreach in DC, TX, OH

November Workshops and Outreach in TX

Jan. 2023 Workshops and Outreach in CA