Article adapted from episode content.
It’s often the case that when discussing abortion, the focus shifts from the central issue—the nature of the unborn—to irrelevant personal accusations. It’s common to hear things like, “You don’t trust women,” or “You devalue women by not letting them be their own moral agents.”
This is a deliberate attempt to change the subject and move away from the core of the matter. People will bring up issues like choice, privacy, trusting women, economic hardship, and countless other distractions. These issues are completely beside the point. Would anyone use those reasons to justify killing two or five-year-olds? Of course not. These are all red herrings designed to steer the conversation away from the real issue, which is: what is being killed in an abortion? Can we kill the unborn? The answer is yes, if—and only if—the unborn are not human.
Many people avoid this question, deeming it unanswerable, or religious. But the question of what kind of being the unborn is is not religious or philosophical; it is an empirical question, one that is answered by the science of embryology.
So, how do we respond when confronted with these diversions? There are three simple words that can completely change the direction of the conversation: “I agree”. When someone says, “You don’t trust women to make their own moral judgments,” do not get defensive and argue that you love women. Instead, say: “I agree. I agree with you completely that I am forcing my views on others. I agree with you that I am unjustly failing to trust women to make their own moral decisions. I agree with you that prolifers like me ought to butt out of this issue. I agree.” But there’s more to it. Follow that “I agree” with an “if.” “I agree if what, if the unborn are not human”.
This shifts the focus back to what really matters. The debate is not about who loves or values women, nor is it about privacy; it’s about what the unborn is. Can we kill the unborn? The answer is yes, if the unborn are not human. The onus is on those who support abortion to demonstrate that the unborn are not human, not simply assert or assume it. They must present sources and evidence.
It’s important to note that people often avoid arguing this point directly. They will ignore the question of humanity and instead say things like, “It doesn’t matter”. They will assume the unborn aren’t human without offering any support for their claim. This cannot be allowed to stand.
When you hear someone bring up choice, privacy, or trusting women, you should firmly say, “I agree,” then add, “if the unborn are not human,” but demand they argue their position with evidence and sources.
In many cases, such an approach will cause their argument to unravel. When forced to address the core issue—what is the unborn—and provide evidence, their position falls apart. The science of embryology is not on the side of those who support abortion. Embryology textbooks show that from the earliest stages of development, each of us began as a one-celled zygote. That was us back then. That wasn’t some other thing we evolved from. That was us.
Even a former head of Planned Parenthood said in his book that it is so evident it is surprising that anyone would question it. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed journal that supported abortion, stated that only through trickery and crafty language could anyone deny that the unborn are human from the point of fertilization.
The key is to always bring people back to the fundamental question: what is the unborn?. The abortion debate is not about choice, privacy, or trusting women. No one uses these arguments when discussing the lives of other human beings. They use those claims because they assume, without argument, that the unborn are not human.
Our pro-life argument comes down to a syllogism:
- Premise one: it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise two: abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: therefore, abortion is wrong.
While it is possible this argument is mistaken, we will not surrender it without a fight. The burden of proof lies with those who want to deny the conclusion or show that the premises are incorrect. Asserting “choice” or “privacy” does not disprove the argument’s validity or soundness. The argument stands or falls based on its merits, not the person making it. It doesn’t matter if I’m the worst person in the world, my argument can still be true.
Most abortion discussions get personalized. People on the political left like to engage in the politics of personal destruction to defeat arguments with ad hominem personal attacks. So when people say I don’t value or trust women, I might just say, “Okay, maybe I’m bad. Could a bad person still make a good argument?” The answer is yes. Arguments are based on their merits.
It is vital to stick to the one question: what is the unborn?. If you get sidetracked, you lose. When attacked for being intolerant or uncaring, just say, “I agree. I agree with you. There should be no restrictions on abortion. I agree if the unborn are not human. But I need you to argue that. And until you do, I’m within my rights to stick to my well-reasoned case based on the science of embryology that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are indeed distinct, living, and whole human beings”.
Remember, it’s vital to stay focused on that one question: what is the unborn?. Don’t let people take you off message. Stick to the point and you’ll be fine in your next conversation.
Episode Transcript
This transcript was generated from the episode’s YouTube captions and lightly edited for readability: filler words and the mid-show announcements have been removed. It may still contain transcription errors.
Hello friends, welcome to The Case for Life podcast, where we aim to help you increase your effectiveness at communicating your pro-life views. Have you ever been in a conversation with someone on the topic of abortion and they say to you something like the following: why don’t you respect women’s privacy? How come you don’t trust women to make their own personal decisions? Why do you want to force your moral views on others who might disagree? Chances are you’ve heard that a lot today.
Today, I want to talk about how you can respond with three very simple words that will change the entire dynamic of the conversation. So here we go. I got a little something going here on a conversation where that’s essentially what I’m being told. Hey, I just don’t understand how you can’t trust women to think for themselves. Why do you devalue women by not letting them be their own moral agents? Now, what typically happens in this type of scenario is the pro-lifer gets real defensive.
They’ll say things like: well, I do love women. I don’t hate women, and why do you think I’m so mean? Wrong answer. What you really want to do is change the entire dynamic of what’s going on in this conversation and bring the issue back to what really matters. Remember, people love to change the topic when it comes to abortion. They’ll talk about Choice, privacy, trusting women, econom, IC hardship and on and on and on, all of which are completely beside the point.
Would any of your friends give those reasons for killing 2-year-olds or 5-year-olds? Of course not. So the real issue here is not whether we’re talking about Choice, privacy or trusting people. The real issue is: what’s being killed in abortion? Can we kill The Unborn? The answer is yes, if, what, if The Unborn are not human. But so many people today don’t want to tackle that issue. They believe it’s beyond answering. They’ll say things like: well, you know, we can’t give an answer.
That’s a religious question. No, the question of what kind of thing The Unborn is is actually an empirical question, and we don’t turn to the Bible to answer it, we don’t turn to philosophy to answer it, we turn to the science of embryology. So how can you use three simple words to get back to the one question that really matters in the abortion debate, which is not privacy, not trusting women, not forcing one’s morality, none of those things are the issue.
The three words you want to learn to use are these: I agree: if, what if The Unborn aren’t human? So let’s just take a conversation here. I still am very surprised that you devalue women and don’t trust them to make their own moral judgments. That’s the comment that’s been put to me. So here’s how I replied. I said: you know what? I agree, if I agree with you completely that I am forcing my views on others. I agree with you that I am unjustly failing to trust women for making their own moral decisions.
I agree with you that prol lifers like me ought to butt out of this issue. I agree, if, what if the born are not human, because this debate is not about who loves women and who hates them. It’s not about who values women and who doesn’t. It’s not about whether I like privacy or not. It’s about what is The Unborn? Can we kill The Unborn? The answer is yes, if, what if The Unborn aren’t human? But I need you to make an argument that they’re not human, not merely assume that they’re not human.
And this is what people love to do. They don’t want to actually come out and argue. They don’t want to step up and say: here are my sources that prove The Unborn are not human beings. They want to ignore that question and say it doesn’t matter, or they simply want to assume, as is being done here in this conversation. They simply want to assume The Unborn are not human without having to do the hard work of arguing that way. You can’t let people get away with that.
So what you want to do, whenever you hear somebody bring up choice, privacy, trusting women, I want you to look at the person. Don’t be snarky, but do look at them and very directly and firmly say: you know, I agree, you’re right. I agree we shouldn’t impose our morality. I agree we should trust women to make their own personal decisions. I agree, if, what if? The unborn are not human. But I need you to argue that, not merely a assert it or assume it.
And often times what’ll happen at that point is the argument the person is trying to make will just unravel. Because once you force them to answer the question what is The Unborn? And provide their sources and evidence for whatever answer they give, the game is up. Because we all know the science of embryology is not on the side of pro-abortionists, it’s on the side of those who say it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being in the womb. And if you look at embryology textbooks worldwide, you will see this summary come through all of them: that from the earliest stages of development each of us began as a one-celled zygote.
That was us back then. That wasn’t some other thing we evolved from. That was us in fact. This has been clear for so long that even Dr Allen gutmacher, in his 1933 book life in the making and you may remember, Dr gutmacher became the head of Planned Parenthood and he’s the namesake for The gutmacher Institute. That is a very pro-abortion think Tank. Well, gutmacher himself, who supported abortion, said in his book life in the making that this is so simple and evident.
It’s surprising that anyone would question it. Now. That’s not a pro-life source, that’s a pro-abortion source. But we can go further. A journal article in the in California medicine, a journal appear, reviewed Journal that supports abortion, was very clear in 1970 that only those who are using crafty language and trickery can deny that The Unborn are human from the point of fertilization. In fact they go on to say this is a fact that everyone knows, that life is continuous from fertilization till natural death.
And the only reason we can deny this is if we come up with some kind of language subterfuge to disguise what we’re really arguing. It’s only by trickery and slight of hand that anyone can pretend to deny this, and so whenever we’re in conversation with people, we want to always bring them back to what is The Unborn? The abortion debate is not about Choice. It’s not about privacy. It’s not about trusting women. How do we know this? Because nobody argues that way when it comes to taking the lives of other human beings.
They only argue that way with The Unborn because they assume, without argument, The Unborn are not human. Remember what we have said many times on this show: syllogism. The pro-life argument ultimately comes down to whether our formal case is valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Everything else is just a distraction. So our formal case is this: here’s our syllogism. Premise one: it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two: abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion therefore: abortion is wrong.
Now look, that argument could be wrong. We don’t pretend that we’re beyond being mistaken, but we’re not going to surrender that argument without a fight. You’re going to have to show me where the conclusion doesn’t follow, or you’re going to have to show me where one or more of those premises is wrong, untrue. Outside of that my argument stands. It won’t work to simply assert a word like Choice, assert a word like privacy, or claiming I don’t trust women. Maybe I do or maybe I don’t trust women.
Maybe I do or maybe I don’t devalue them. How does that have any relevance on the validity or soundness of the argument I am making? Remember: arguments stand or fall apart from the people making them. Make people debate the question: what is The Unborn? And if they aren’t prepared to do that, they’re really not prepared to enter the discussion in any kind of intellectually honest fashion. They’re just going to be asserting their own platitudes, their own opinions that are vacuous and have no support behind them.
So when I get people who turn on me and say, Hey, you know you just you don’t value women, you don’t trust them, you have a very low view and you don’t esteem them much. Okay, let’s say I’m that bad. How does it follow? My argument is wrong and how does it prove The Unborn aren’t human? Suppose I’m. Could The Unborn still be human even if I’m a jerk? And the answer is yes, because the argument is based on its merits, not the person making it, and this is something you always need to keep in mind.
I’d say close to 90% of all abortion discussions I get in have nothing to do with the act of abortion or the target of abortion. They all get personalized and this is something that that political leftists love to do. People on the left make everything personal. It’s all about the politics of personal destruction. They try to defeat your argument by destroying you with an ad hominum personal attack. Hey, listen, I’ll admit it. I’ll just say, hey, I’m a bad dude. Could a bad dude still make a good argument?
The answer is yes, because that argument stands or falls on its merits. When you engage people, it is vitally important that you stick to the one question that really matters: what is The Unborn? If you allow yourself to get taken off that, if you follow a rabbit Trail, get off on a detour that has something to do with you and not the argument you’re making, you’re already losing. Don’t do that. Stick to the one issue and three words that will help you do that is when they attack you for being intolerant, not caring, not valuing women, you can just look at them and say, I agree, if I agree with you, there should be no restrictions on abortion.
I agree with you, our laws should permit it through all nine months of pregnancy. I agree if, what if? The unborn are not human. But I need you to make a case for that, not merely assert it or assume it. And until you make that case, I’m within my rights to stick to my well-reasoned case that I’ve presented, based on the science of embryology that from the earliest stages of development, The Unborn are indeed distinct, living and whole human beings. I don’t know if you have it yet, but I’ve got right here with me a tool that will really help you in that regard.
This is the second edition of the case for Life Book, vastly updated from the original. As you can see, it’s quite thick, but in here I opened the book. The first three chapters are really about arguing. Well, we don’t even start talking about abortion direct ly until somewhere in the middle of the third chapter. And here’s why: because we want to give you the tools of thought that will help you navigate conversations where people want to change the subject, and it’s vital you not let them do it, and the book will help you do that.
You can certainly get this at scottus andorf, decom or case forlife.com. We’d love to send you a copy of the book If you haven’t ordered one already. We even have a few sign copies left, I believe, and we’ll get those out to you. But it’s vital you know how to stick to the very narrow question: what is The Unborn? Do not let people take you off message. Stick to the point and you’ll be just fine in your next conversation. Thanks for joining us today.
I hope you’ll visit our social media sites and, like us there, spread the word about this podcast if it’s been a help to you and we’ll continue helping you. Be an engaged pro-lifer throughout the series that we do here. Thanks for joining us. I’ll see you next episode.