A Difficult Answer to a Difficult Question

I talked to a thoughtful high school student who told me I opened his mind.

I get asked many difficult questions in my conversations with students at universities. One question I get asked in nearly every conversation is, “What about abortion in the case of rape?” In May, I was at UCLA on Bruin Walk, and a woman I’ll call “Taylor” asked me if I thought abortion should be legal in this difficult circumstance, especially if the victim is really young.

I said something like:

Given the recent unrest at UCLA, I wasn’t sure how the outreach event would go, but we had two productive days of civil conversations!

I have a hard time emotionally with my own answer to this question. My heart doesn’t want to tell a rape victim that she can’t do something that she feels will help her heal. If she wants something, I just want to say “Yes” to her.  I want her to get all the care, help, and counseling she needs. I think we can agree what happened to her was wrong and evil. She should be separated from the abuser and protected from any future abuse.

A way that I help myself process this question is by imagining a twelve-year-old girl who gets pregnant from rape and decides to continue the pregnancy. Then after she gives birth, she’s now thirteen and thinks to herself, “I don’t want to do this anymore. I’m only thirteen and can’t care for a child.” Would we allow her to kill her child? Clearly the answer is no.

I bring this up because I believe a child in the womb is equally human to the newborn in this scenario. I want to come up with non-violent solutions here. I am against rape because it’s a violent act against an innocent person, and that’s precisely why I’m also against abortion. It is also a violent act against another human being.

Taylor then shared with me that she was a victim of rape. She was assaulted when she was very young, became pregnant from the rape, and then had a miscarriage. She told me she liked how I had answered the question and that it made sense. She also said she appreciated that I didn’t bring up the 1% figure that many pro-life people cite. I asked her if bringing up that percentage felt dismissive to her as a rape victim. She said that it does.

A common response to abortion in the case of rape is to highlight that only around 1% of abortions are due to rape. While this statistic is true based on the research available (see www.jfaweb.org/facts), I generally don’t bring this up. With about a million abortions happening every year, an estimated 10,000 women have abortions every year because they were raped. That’s a lot of women dealing with horrific trauma.

It’s not that I never share this statistic. It is helpful to know, and some people ask me about it. It’s important, though, that we don’t rush into sharing this statistic and neglect showing concern and compassion for victims of rape. If we aren’t careful here, we risk sounding callous and indifferent to victims of rape.

During our conversation, Taylor told me I was the first pro-life person to have a calm conversation with her. That was disheartening for me to hear, but I was also thankful God gave me the opportunity to give her a good experience discussing the issue of abortion. We went on to talk about some other traumatic experiences in her life, her religious upbringing, the Bible, and some of her beliefs about God.

I face two general challenges in every conversation I have with students. One is giving intellectually satisfying answers to all the questions, statements, and arguments people bring up to defend abortion. The other challenge is being emotionally sensitive to the person and to the difficult things each person has been through. It’s the challenge of knowing how to answer each person (Colossians 4:6). It’s a conversation rooted in love for other people and a deep love for and commitment to the truth. It’s the kind of conversation I get to have all over the country because of your support. Thank you for standing with me.

Setting Starfish Free

Note: Catherine Wurts served as a JFA Trainer from 2009 until 2017. In this “Classic Reprint” of her June 2014 letter, “Setting Starfish Free,” Catherine tells one of my favorite JFA stories. In the story of “Anthony,” Catherine both makes a persuasive case for the value of unborn children and seeks to help a young man realize his own worth as “one loved by God.” She also illustrates the heartbeat of the JFA community, seeking whenever possible to open a door to deeper reflection on spiritual things, in hopes that starfish will by the Holy Spirit allow our conversations to nudge them to “dive in.” When you support JFA, you support this heartbeat on the campuses and in the churches where we train and conduct outreach across the country. Thank you for considering a special gift to JFA this month to help us train more Christians to “make a difference for even one.” - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

View fullsize

Catherine (right) interacts with a student at the University of Georgia (UGA) in March 2014.

My colleague, John Michener (bottom photo, center), often illustrates JFA’s mission by referencing the story of The Star Thrower, by Loren Eisley:

One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean. Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?” The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”

View fullsize

John Michener (blue tie-dye) engages Arizona State University (ASU) students in dialogue in Feb. 2014. John served as a JFA trainer from 2010 until 2014 and now directs Oklahomans United for Life: www.oklahomansunitedforlife.org.

“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!” At this, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, “I made a difference for that one.”

Who are our “starfish”? They’re the thousands of students streaming by our university Exhibit outreaches on their way to class. Many of them have had or are going to have abortions. Many others are pro-life Christians who are either silent or unloving when the topic of abortion comes up. Many, many of them are blind to the inherent dignity of the unborn – and of born people – because they have no idea how valued and loved they, themselves, are by their Creator. One significant difference between us and the boy on the beach, however, is that our “starfish” have free will. We can take them to the ocean, but they have to choose whether or not to dive in. [Editor’s note: We are not intending here to weigh in on the precise nature and interrelation of human choices and divine providence.]

Meet Anthony (name changed), a “starfish” at the University of Georgia, Athens (UGA). I met Anthony on a very rainy day in front of our Draw the Line kiosk on his campus last fall. He is a pre-med student from Egypt and has only been in the U.S. for a short time. We spoke for a while about abortion – he considered himself generally pro-life but thought abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and other difficult circumstances. We established a lot of common ground about needing to be compassionate to women and to provide resources for them. Also, he said he thought the logical argument I laid out for why abortion is not justified, even in these tough cases, was consistent and probably true.

Then he asked me, “Are you religious?”

“Yes. Why do you ask?”

He smiled as though he’d “got” me. “It seems like everyone I’ve met who’s pro-life is religious.”

“Well, I know of atheists who are pro-life,” I said, “which makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it, if the unborn is a human being? If we think about it, does a person have to be religious to recognize that murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong? The question is, ‘Is abortion a similar injustice against a human being?’ There are atheists who would say that it is.” *

Anthony agreed this made logical sense. He went on to explain that he’d been raised in an Orthodox Christian home in Egypt, but when he came to the States he put all of that behind him. He had started to think that morals are relative and that perhaps God doesn’t exist.

We talked for a while, him sharing some of his disillusionment with Christians, and me sharing that I’d had similar doubts and concerns when I was in college. I told him I admired him for asking the tough questions he was asking. Then I challenged him to look more deeply into the claims that Christianity makes before rejecting it – and before rejecting Christ. I suggested he begin by reading C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. He said he would, but I thought, “How many times have I intended to read something and never gotten to it?” Then Anthony left for class. I guessed he wouldn’t read the book, and felt sure I wouldn’t see him again.

Come March of this year, I found myself in the same quad by the student center at UGA standing in front of the JFA Exhibit. I was talking with another student who was sharing very similar things with me to what Anthony had shared, but this student was decidedly more antagonistic, sarcastic, and unwilling to dialogue. All of a sudden, I noticed Anthony standing next to us, listening in! He smiled and when the other student left, Anthony said he’d come to tell me that he’d read Mere Christianity and talked a lot with his uncle. As a result, he had decided to come back to his Christian faith.

He’s started attending an Orthodox church in town and doing some service projects with them. He told me, with a huge smile on his face, “When I met you, I was obsessing about these questions about life and about God. When I would eat my food, I would be thinking, ‘Is there a God?’ Everywhere I went I was worrying over it. But I’m not obsessing anymore! I am happy!” St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, wrote, “For freedom Christ set us free, so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.” Anthony, like the little starfish, had been set free. Praise God. Please pray for him as he continues on his journey with the Lord.

- Catherine Wurts, June 2014

* For example, Secular Pro-Life (SPL) is both strongly pro-life and explicitly atheistic. See JFA’s blog post featuring a list of links to SPL posts every pro-life advocate should read: www.jfaweb.org/secular-pro-life.

Aha Moments for Henry

Impact Report, May 2024

In this Impact Report, we feature a reflection from JFA trainer Andrea Thenhaus along with pictures of JFA trainers and volunteers at recent outreach events.  In early April, Andrea had a memorable conversation with Henry at Grand Valley State University near Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Although many people with whom we interact on campus don’t reveal their inner thought processes, Henry was kind enough to give Andrea a glimpse of how the conversation was changing him.  Aha moments are a joy to witness, but whatever the results seem on the surface, we thank God for helping us speak for those who cannot speak for themselves (Proverbs 31:8).  We thank God for you and for your partnership as we seek to be faithful in each conversation.

-Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Andrea (center) and volunteer Kalen (left) at Adams State University in Colorado (April)

Our team was nearing the end of our second day of outreach at Grand Valley State University. While the team started taking everything down, I remained available for conversations.

About this time, a student I’ll call “Henry” walked by our exhibit. I asked him if he had time to share his thoughts on the issue of abortion.

Henry replied that he was on his way to class and could not talk. Then a minute later, he turned around and said, “Actually, I have a few minutes to talk.” Our conversation went something like this:

Andrea: Okay, awesome. Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?

Henry: I think it should be legal mainly for cases like rape, health of the baby, and life of the mother.

Andrea: Those are all hard cases for sure. Rape is such a horrific thing. Even if the woman does not get pregnant, it is still a traumatic experience. Then if the woman gets pregnant, things get even more complicated.

Kaitlyn (sitting), Kristina (center), and Seth (right) at University of Cincinnati (March)

Rather than jumping right into challenging Henry on his viewpoint, I was taking the time to slow down and show compassion for people who have been raped. Pro-choice and pro-life people all agree that rape is horrific, and it is helpful to find that common ground in our conversations. After spending a few minutes meeting the relational challenge inherent in discussing the topic of rape by acknowledging how difficult that situation is, I went on to intellectually respond to the questions he raised.

Andrea: For these specific circumstances that you mentioned, do you think abortions should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy or for a certain period of time?

Henry: Definitely a certain period of time. I believe the unborn are living human beings, so abortion should be legal for only the first trimester.

Andrea: Okay. Do you know anyone who has been affected by rape?

Henry: No, I do not. I just know it happens.

Andrea: Yeah, for sure. Here’s one way I look at it. Imagine there are two women who have been violated through rape. Both women have gotten pregnant. One of the women has given birth to her son. He is two months old now. The other woman is two months pregnant. If I asked you if both women have the right to kill their child, I think you would say no.

Henry: Right! Of course the woman with the two-month-old should not be able to kill her child.

Steve and volunteer Kim (right) at University of Arizona (February)

Andrea: I totally agree. If the unborn are human beings like the two-month-old, then we should protect the unborn even if they came about through rape, right?

Henry: You made a good point there! That makes sense. And why should the unborn be punished for the wrong that was committed?

Andrea: I agree.

Henry: Abortion should only be legal for the health of the baby and the life of the mother.

I addressed these issues, and by the end of the discussion, Henry responded:

Henry: Wow! Those are good points. This has given me a lot to think about.

Before Henry left for class, he thanked me for the conversation. I could tell that God was working in his life. Henry realized that since the unborn are living human beings, they should be protected even if they may not live very long or if they were conceived through rape.

Our trainers and volunteers often have opportunities to gently challenge pro-choice students and point out the inconsistencies in their views by asking them questions that help them think through the issue themselves. Thank you for your prayers and support that allow us to have conversations with students like Henry.

Suggested Reading: “I'd Rather Be Aborted.”

It’s such a simple mistake, and it’s so easy to prevent. Many pro-life advocates process statements defending abortion only intellectually. This causes them either to immediately launch into an intellectual response or to stay silent because they haven't studied the particulars of the topics raised. If they will simply pause, though, and take time to sympathize with what the person is saying, they can not only find something to say, but they can also say precisely the thing that will open the other person’s heart to the unborn child.

Rebekah Dyer gives excellent teaching on how to employ this insight with one common abortion-choice argument in her recent post for the Human Defense Initiative (HDI): “I’d Rather Be Aborted.” Click the image or this link to read an updated version of the article.

In virtually every training event we lead, whether it’s an interactive workshop or an outreach event where volunteers are learning to converse with people who disagree, we emphasize this need to “be relational first, and then be intellectual.” I suggest sharing Rebekah’s letter with others to help them learn this easy strategy that can transform conversations. Thank you for helping us bring this essential equipping to Christians all over the country

"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.

Masked Conversations

February 2024 Impact Report

When our team conducts campus outreach, we start conversations with people of all different types. What’s pretty common among all of this diversity, though, is the tendency for people to hide behind various kinds of masks. On Halloween every year, these masks are visible. On all other days, the masks are invisible but nonetheless present.

In this Impact Report, JFA trainer Rebekah Dyer tells the story of one conversation that had both the visible type of mask and the invisible type of mask. In the conversation, she modeled an excellent approach each of us can use as Christian ambassadors to build trust in order to help people come out from behind their masks and partner with us in finding truth.

Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Rebekah spoke with another masked man on Halloween at the University of North Texas (UNT) in fall 2023.

On Halloween last year, I was at the University of North Texas, and I noticed a man in a scary, tan-colored mask with no mouth and black eyes. He was looking at our embryology pictures.

I asked him what he thought about abortion. He shrugged and motioned to his mask. An interesting interaction ensued as I asked him questions, and he tried to answer with hand motions. Here’s the gist of the conversation that followed:

At UNT, a banana signed “No, abortion should not be legal.” Seth (hat) is visible talking to another student.

“Wait,” I asked, “can you not talk in the mask?” He nodded. “Is it that tight?” He nodded again. “How long have you been wearing it?” He made a motion with his hands. “You’ve been wearing it for twenty-one hours?” I asked, surprised. With an exasperated sigh he motioned again. “Two and a half hours?” I guessed again. He nodded vigorously. “Wow!” I said. “Well, if you want to chat, I’ll be around.”

“This is gonna look bad, but I’m going to sign,” said the Grim Reaper to JFA trainer Kristina at UNT. Then she proceeded to sign “Yes” on our poll.

I stepped away to make some notes about another conversation I had had that day. A few minutes later the student took off his mask, and we began to have a normal conversation. “Landon” told me he was in the middle on this issue. As I asked him questions, he shared that he thought abortion should be broadly legal so that women who have life-threatening complications during pregnancy have access to abortion. He shared that he had a friend who had been raped and had gotten pregnant at thirteen years old. This friend had also had seven abortions. Landon also told me people should be educated about abortion so that they know that it kills another human being.

As we spoke, I was hearing some conflicting things from Landon, so I asked the following question to help clarify some of the confusion:

Rebekah: What if we could have a law that made elective abortion broadly illegal, but had an exception for cases where the life of the mother is in danger?

Landon: Oh, that’s brilliant!

Rebekah: That’s what the current law is in Texas.

Landon was surprised and told me he agreed with the current law. As our conversation began to wind down he confessed something to me:

Landon: I need to apologize to you. I lied to you earlier. I can talk just fine in this mask. I was worried that you were going to yell at me when I walked up. I wanted to check out the signs, but I didn’t want to talk to anyone.

Rebekah: Thank you for telling me. I forgive you. I can understand why it might feel intimidating to come up to this display if you have that fear.

During our conversation, he shared with me that he was a Christian. Whenever someone tells me he is a Christian, I always ask him what he means by that. Landon answered by referencing the Nicene Creed.

This conversation highlights a few important things. First, if we jump to challenging people the moment we hear something with which we disagree, we can easily talk past them and address a view they don’t hold. In every conversation, it is crucial that we ask good questions and listen in order to understand the other person’s views. Landon went from sounding like he was in the middle on this issue, to sounding very pro-choice, to finally clarifying that he was actually opposed to the vast majority of abortions. If I hadn’t slowed down and asked Landon questions, I could have missed what he was trying to communicate.

Second, many people are unaware of the abortion laws in their own state. There is also a lot of apathy and ignorance surrounding what abortion is and what it does to another human being. When we have conversations about these things we have the opportunity to inform people and help move their hearts toward loving forgotten human beings, especially the unborn.

Third, many people are understandably uncomfortable talking about abortion. They are afraid of being verbally attacked, yelled at, and ridiculed. I understand that fear because I’ve had those experiences, and it affected the way I felt going into some future conversations. I’ve learned that acting against my fear and discomfort is necessary and something I’m called to do as a Christian. God meets us in those places of fear, and He empowers us to engage in the midst of difficult situations. By treating people with kindness and gentleness, we can invite others to engage in the conversation in spite of their fears.

In my experience, most conversations about abortion are not hostile. When people see that I want to have a civil conversation about an important issue, they are open to engaging in a respectful way. I think we can give people a gift on multiple levels. We can give them a good experience in a conversation about a difficult topic by asking questions, listening, and truly understanding them. Then we can help them get closer to the truth by challenging them to stop tolerating the killing of innocent children in the womb.

Should We Flip-Flop When Someone Flips Out?

JFA trainer Kristina Massa was surprised when an angry young woman lashed out at a poll table sign at our outreach event at Boise State in the fall. She was even more surprised at the conversation that followed. Through her retelling in a recent letter, “Flipping Tables in the Courtyard” (enclosed, or see www.jfaweb.org/jan-2024), Kristina provides a great model for deciding “what to say when,” and she illustrates the sort of balanced approach all JFA trainers aim to exhibit in every conversation. Please read her letter, and then I’ll explain.

Note how Kristina doesn’t shy away from the young woman’s question about homosexuality and marriage. You might think this would lead to a distraction from the main topic. While controversial questions can be a distraction in some abortion conversations, in this instance addressing the topic turned out to be helpful.

Click here for the Printable Version.

Kristina answered the young woman’s questions directly and honestly, giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was asking in good faith and not intending to trap. Kristina didn’t try to hide her views on sexuality and marriage, even though she knew they were very controversial. She didn’t go weak-kneed or change her views because this woman had flipped out by “flipping tables” (her words). Instead, Kristina gave a straightforward answer with a reasonable explanation, and she also avoided expressing her views in an unnecessarily harsh way.

Then Kristina prayed with the young woman, banking on the fact that they shared similar backgrounds in Christian communities. Rather than focusing on the differences she definitely had with this woman regarding beliefs about God, Jesus, and how we should live, Kristina focused on the small sliver of common ground that this woman had implied earlier, that she did consider herself to be following Jesus.

With many people who vehemently disagree with us on difficult topics, we have found this approach to be disarming and bridge-building. In this case, I am guessing that this woman appreciated the fact that Kristina showed interest in a passion of hers. I believe the woman also felt dignified by Kristina’s decision to trust her with what she really thought.

Greg Koukl's "Street Smarts" - Highly Recommended!

See my review from a few months ago of Greg Koukl’s recent offering, Street Smarts: Using Questions to Answer Christianity's Toughest Challenges. As you can see, I highly recommend it.

Human Fetuses Are Not Parasites

Free Speech Board comment at the University of Kansas.

“The fetus is just a parasite.” Some pro-choice advocates make this claim, and they can mean very different things by referring to unborn children as “parasites”. A student at Kansas University wrote the following:

The women’s rights should take precedence over the rights of a parasite (technical definition of a fetus in the 1st trimester) because she is already an existing human who has every right to decline to birth something that she might not be able to take care of, or would be psychologically traumatic to raise or give up. NOT YOUR BODY, NOT YOUR CHOICE.

Let’s break down some aspects of this comment:

“The women’s rights should take precedence over the rights of a parasite (technical definition of a fetus in the 1st trimester)…” If after asking clarification questions you find that the person is using the parasite language in a biological sense, it’s important to point out that fetuses do not fit the scientific criteria for parasitism. JFA Trainer Rebekah Dyer notes this in her article Human Fetuses are Not Parasites:

fetuses do “not match the biological definition of a parasite. 'Biologically defined, parasitism is a “form of symbiosis in which one organism (called a parasite) benefits at the expense of another organism usually of different species (called a host). This host-parasite association may eventuate to the injury of the host.' In order to understand the relationship between mother and fetus, we need to look at the various types of symbiosis. There are three kinds of symbiosis: commensalism, mutualism and parasitism. In commensalism, only one species benefits while the other is neither harmed nor benefited. In mutualism, both partners benefit. In parasitism, one organism benefits while the other suffers harm."

The parasite claim is often complex and the person using the term can mean different things by it. Sometimes the person doesn’t mean it in a biological sense at all. Rebekah Dyer’s second article on the parasite term goes more into depth on this aspect of the “parasite” claim some pro-choice advocates make, and she provides insight on how to navigate that in conversation.

Note that the writer of this comment states that the woman is “already an existing human” implying the additional phrase, “unlike the unborn who is not an existing human yet.” But this is merely an assumption. It begs the central question “What is the unborn?” Then the comment concludes with a bodily rights statement at the end.

To learn how to respond to comments like these, sign up for our Love3 Workshops.

Conversations with Helen and Lisa

Thank you for supporting JFA’s work this year. We’ve been especially encouraged by the efforts of our fall 2023 interns, Seth and Catherine. In this Impact Report, you’ll read first-hand accounts of their conversations with “Helen” and “Lisa.” You can see both interns in action in the banner image and at the end of this post. Catherine will continue to volunteer with JFA in the coming months, and Seth is now raising support to work full-time as a Training Specialist. We thank God for these talented pro-life advocates, and we thank God for your partnership that has helped them make an impact.

You can still give a year-end gift at www.jfaweb.org/donate, or you can give a year-end gift by mail using the enclosed giving form and envelope. To receive a 2023 donation receipt, make sure gifts are submitted online or postmarked by December 31, 2023. Merry Christmas!

-Steve Wagner

IF WE HAD NOT GONE…

By Catherine Gimino, Fall 2023 Intern

“Helen” was unsure of her words, not just because we had interrupted her morning walk to class with an unexpected survey on abortion, but also because she was a foreign exchange student and new to speaking English. Despite this added difficulty with an already culturally-loaded topic, she was very willing to talk. I began by asking her questions to understand her view on abortion. Her view was that the unborn is not human until birth and so abortion at any stage is acceptable.

I walked her through what biology teaches us about the unborn, showing her that they are human beings starting at fertilization. I used Trot Out The Toddler and the Equal Rights Argument, tools taught by JFA to keep the conversation focused and to show that the unborn are human beings with an equal right to life. My attempts to clearly lay out the arguments were far from perfect. Despite feeling discouraged by my lack of eloquence, I kept going.

I eventually asked my coworker Kristina to jump in. She asked Helen, “Based off of what you’ve heard, do you think differently about abortion?” Helen responded saying that abortion should be illegal through all nine months and that she would support pro-life laws!

After Helen left, we debriefed the conversation. I told Kristina that I thought I could have explained things more clearly, but Kristina refocused me on the big picture: “That was a total mind change! By talking to you she went from thinking all abortion is okay to being against abortion. That is really awesome!” Then I realized something. If we had not gone out to WSU and asked Helen to participate in a JFA survey, her usual walk to class would have remained uninterrupted, and she would not have learned the truth about abortion that morning.

I trust God will bring a lot of fruit from this “interruption.”

A Conversation at Mankato

By Seth Wiesner, Fall 2023 Intern

In October I was doing outreach with the JFA team at Minnesota State University in Mankato. I started a conversation with a young woman named “Lisa.” She quickly became angry and began raising her voice. Suddenly she exclaimed, “I wish I had been aborted!”

Sensing that this issue was very personal to her, I took a step back from the questions I typically ask in order to challenge a person’s view. Instead I simply asked questions to try to understand her perspective. Asking questions about her beliefs not only helped me understand her position, but also demonstrated my care for her as a person. It gave me the opportunity to learn about her background, and this helped me discover the unspoken reasons that influenced her position.

Using this approach, we discussed her views on many different topics including the resurrection of Jesus. By the end of our conversation, she had softened her demeanor and her pro-choice views considerably. She accepted JFA’s “Invitation to Dialogue” brochure when I offered it to her and told me she was open to being pro-life. Thanks be to God. (See www.jfaweb.org/brochure to view and download the brochure.)

There is a great need for people to understand the truth about abortion. There are many out there, especially young adults, who haven’t been taught well and need someone to help them see how appalling abortion is. My conversation with Lisa is an example of how asking questions with an open heart and listening to understand can change the course of a conversation and lead people closer to the truth.

Event Announcement: Long Island, NY (March 9, 2024)