Have a Conversation, Not a Fight
Article adapted from episode content.
Conversations surrounding abortion frequently escalate into intensely heated disputes, often resembling a “combustible gas fire” that ignites with a mere spark and “blows up in your face”. While some of this volatility is inherent to the topic and not necessarily the fault of the individual, there are aspects that can be controlled to prevent such explosive outcomes. The core challenge lies in a significant worldview divide prevalent in Western nations, including the U.S., Canada, and Europe. This divide centers on two fundamental questions: “Is truth true? In other words, is moral truth real and knowable? Can we actually know what’s right and wrong? Or are moral is just a preference like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla?” and “What makes humans valuable in the first place?”.
The debate over abortion, fundamentally, is not about medical procedures, gender politics, or religious imposition; it is about whether “the unborn count as one of us”. This echoes the historical debate over slavery, which was not about property rights or religious enforcement, but whether an enslaved person was considered a human being, and thus, should not be treated as property. If the unborn are indeed considered “one of us,” then any justification for ending their lives must be as compelling as reasons required to justify killing any other human. This deep-seated philosophical difference is why abortion discussions become so charged. However, it is possible to engage in these conversations constructively, where participants genuinely stick to the issue and listen to one another. This article explores a strategic approach to fostering such productive dialogues, drawing insights from an interview with a university student on the topic of morals and abortion.
Setting the Ground Rules: Objective vs. Subjective Morality
A critical first step in navigating the abortion conversation is to establish whether the individual believes abortion is a moral issue with objective truths or merely a matter of personal preference. In a relativistic, postmodern culture, many people perceive abortion as a preference akin to choosing an ice cream flavor, which can lead to both parties “talking right past each other”. To address this, a conversation might begin by posing a seemingly simple question: “Is there a difference between these two statements I’m about to make? Chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. That’s statement one. Statement two, it’s wrong to torture toddlers for fun”.
Initially, a common response is to classify the ice cream statement as a “subjective opinion” and the torture statement as “pretty objective”. This acknowledges a distinction between objective and subjective claims. However, when pressed on whether morals, in general, fall into the objective category, individuals may express disagreement, arguing that “a lot of like decisions you can make morally that are also subjective depending on the situation”. This often reveals a philosophical stance where “most of her worldview is built on the premise that morals are totally subjective,” a position they are hesitant to abandon.
Despite initial resistance, the Socratic method can reveal underlying concessions. When asked if it’s “ever you could imagine it would be okay to torture toddlers for fun,” the answer is unequivocally “No”. This establishes at least one “objective moral truth” that can be universally agreed upon, demonstrating that “she does accept that there might be some objective morals out there, at least in some situations”.
The conversation might then delve into whether one can like something but still acknowledge it as wrong. The example of desiring to steal a Corvette but refraining because “it would be wrong” highlights this distinction. Further probing reveals the underlying tension: if one person feels stealing a car is “morally okay,” does that make it so? This leads back to the assertion that “morals really are subjective because even though I might feel like torturing to others for fun is wrong, somebody else could feel a different way”. This demonstrates an attempt to “switch her position to hedge it a bit” to maintain a subjective moral framework.
The key is to “graciously but firmly press the point” without creating a “gotcha” moment. Asking, “If someone felt it was okay to torture toddlers for fun, would that make it okay?” elicits a “No,” confirming that it would “still be objective. wrong even though they felt it was okay”. The goal is clarity, not confrontation. The conversation can further explore the existence of non-situational objective moral truths by asking if there’s “any possible world we could conceive of where racism and rape are okay?”. The answer is consistently “No,” solidifying the concept of objective moral truths. This often leads to the individual softening their stance, acknowledging that “some things I feel like are objective” while others remain subjective, moving away from an “all morals are objective or subjective” dichotomy. This creates “room to work” for further discussion.
Engaging the Core Issue: Human Value and Equality
Once a common ground on objective moral truths is established, the conversation can transition to abortion itself. The New York law liberalizing abortion up to nine months and stripping protection from fetuses surviving abortion procedures serves as a tangible example to prompt discussion. When asked for thoughts, an individual may express a “pro-choice” stance but often with limits, such as drawing a line at the third trimester. This limit is often justified by the idea that there has been ample time to make a decision, and beyond a certain point, it becomes “unfair to the child”.
Probing the reasoning behind this “decisive point” often reveals a reliance on fetal development. The individual may acknowledge that a “fetus is like pretty well develop,” with a heartbeat around the eight-week mark, and that it “develops a lot faster than people might think it does”. This admission itself can cause internal conflict, demonstrating that “this knowledge is already bothering her”.
The conversation then pivots to the logical implications of development as the basis for rights: “if development gives us our right to life or our value, do you believe then those with more development should have greater rights than those with less?”. This directly challenges the premise that value hinges on developmental stage. When asked if this poses a “problem for human equality,” a thoughtful individual will often concede, “Yes”. This moment highlights a crucial point: if equality is valued, then basing rights on developmental differences leads to a contradictory position.
Another common deflection in abortion debates is the “my body, my choice” argument. The speaker notes that this is often a cultural refrain rather than a conscious dodge. While respecting the individual’s perspective, it’s important to “stay on message” and bring the conversation back to the core issue of human value. The individual may revert to the idea that as long as the baby is “inside her body,” it’s her choice, acknowledging that “Whether or not that makes sense or is justified, I don’t really know”.
To create “cognitive dissonance,” an example from fetal surgery can be introduced. Doctors can remove a fetus from the womb, repair a herniated diaphragm, and then place it back inside, with the baby eventually born at full term. The question then becomes: “If location matters, whether it’s in the womb or out, does that particular fetus go from having no rights just prior to the surgery to having rights while outside during the surgery, but back to having no rights again when placed back in?”. This thought experiment directly challenges the “location” argument for personhood, often leading to a moment of significant intellectual struggle, described as “blowing my little liberal moderate mind”.
Tactical Considerations for Effective Dialogue
1. Address Underlying Worldviews: The success of such conversations hinges on understanding and engaging with the other person’s foundational worldview. If someone adheres to “body self dualism”—the belief that one’s true identity is solely their “thoughts, your desires, your cognitive processes,” separate from the physical body—then presenting arguments based on fetal development (e.g., “by week 12 it can already dream,” “by week 16 it can feel pain”) will be ineffective. These developmental milestones “doesn’t mean squat to you” if identity is disassociated from the body. Therefore, before discussing abortion specifics, it is essential to determine what they believe makes a human being valuable: is it what they do, or do they possess “intrinsic value” simply by being human?. Understanding their views on objective truth is equally vital.
2. Ask Thoughtful Questions, Don’t Just Shout Conclusions: A common pitfall in the pro-life movement has been “shouting conclusions rather than establishing arguments”. Holding signs that declare “Abortion kills children” might be seen as merely a personal opinion by passersby. Instead, asking questions like, “Don’t you think all humans have an equal right to life?” encourages thoughtful engagement. The goal is not to win an immediate argument or to deliver a “gotcha question” that shuts down the conversation. Such tactics may silence an opponent but rarely lead to a rethinking of their position. The true objective is to “put a pebble in someone’s shoe”. Just as a pebble irritates until it’s dealt with, a well-placed, thought-provoking question or point can prompt ongoing reflection, even after the conversation ends. This is like getting “a single rather than swinging for the fences” in baseball; the aim is to get on base and create future opportunities for deeper engagement.
3. Watch Your Tone and Be Gracious: Maintaining a respectful and genuinely appreciative tone is paramount. The objective is not to “corner you and make you feel stupid”. If the other person feels belittled or embarrassed, they will cease to listen. A successful conversation, even one that challenges deeply held beliefs, should end with both parties feeling respected and heard. Expressing gratitude for their time and willingness to share their thoughts, as seen in the example conversation, fosters a positive environment. The goal is to “give her something to think about,” not to embarrass or ridicule. As “Christian ambassadors,” the approach should be gracious and thoughtful, not aggressive or confrontational.
In conclusion, transforming heated abortion debates into productive conversations requires a strategic shift from confrontation to empathetic inquiry. By first establishing common ground on the nature of objective moral truth and then gently but persistently exploring the implications of differing views on human value, it is possible to plant “pebbles” of thought that encourage genuine reflection. Prioritizing thoughtful questions over declarative statements, maintaining a gracious tone, and understanding the underlying worldviews are crucial components of engaging others effectively. This approach fosters an environment where individuals are open to reconsidering their positions, leading to more meaningful dialogue on one of society’s most contentious issues.