The challenge of engaging hostile ideas requires both intellectual rigor and remarkable composure. Recently, Allie Beth Stuckey demonstrated a master class in intellectual engagement by sitting with twenty progressive Christians who sought to challenge her biblical worldview beliefs. This demanding format—where critics approached her individually to present their challenges—provided a compelling example of how a pro-life Christian can successfully engage multiple critics simultaneously. The consensus among observers was clear: Stuckey “put on a clinic” and delivered a phenomenal performance, proving herself better equipped intellectually and biblically than her opponents.
The Pillars of Effective Engagement
Stuckey’s success in navigating this adversarial setting was not merely accidental; it stemmed from a combination of strategic preparation and exemplary demeanor. Firstly, she exhibited mastery of the material, demonstrating comprehensive intellectual and biblical preparedness. Critics generally lacked serious intellectual challenges to offer, which highlighted Stuckey’s superior equipping. Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, she possessed the ability to remain winsome and gracious throughout the exchange. She maintained control of the situation without resorting to shouting over opponents. Her approach was described as “statesmanlike,” polite, and civil, ensuring that while she scored rhetorical points, she also compelled people to truly think about the issues, preventing them from being distracted by any personal arrogance or “off-putishness”.
This kind of effective engagement is essential for Christians who are leaving the safety of churches and homes and are confronted with hostile ideas in the wider world. Organizations like Summit Ministries are instrumental in equipping students to defend a biblical worldview, teaching them how to persuasively engage a culture that often holds that moral truth is subjective and that human life lacks intrinsic value. Stuckey’s performance vividly demonstrated the value of such preparation.
Establishing the Parameters: Defining the Core Issue
One of Stuckey’s most persuasive and brilliant strategic moves was her insistence on defining terms before allowing critics to proceed with “gotcha” questions. When challenged by a progressive Christian named Jared, who aimed to start with rapid-fire yes or no questions, Stuckey paused the conversation, stating: “Can I define our terms first and then I’ll let you go and I won’t interrupt you”.
This move was vital because critics of the pro-life view often attempt to throw “mud on the wall, hoping something sticks, but never have to really defend a position of his own”. By demanding clarity on terminology, Stuckey ensured that the discussion centered on the actual argument at hand. As a foundational principle in pro-life apologetics, the most important words often boil down to three: Syllogism, Syllogism, Syllogism. The goal is to keep the argument clear and concise, sticking to the main issue: “what is abortion and what is the unborn”.
Stuckey attempted to define abortion as “the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb”. The pro-life position is best articulated through a formal 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.
Refusing the “Murder” Trap
The initial exchange quickly exposed a common tactic used by critics: attempting to redefine the argument to focus on whether abortion constitutes “murder”. After Stuckey defined abortion as “the intentional killing of a human fetus in the womb,” the critic responded, “I don’t agree that abortion is murder”. This was a deliberate attempt to change the subject.
The sources strongly suggest that pro-lifers should avoid allowing critics to “flip the script” to the topic of murder. The reason is rooted in legal complexities. In a court of law, achieving a conviction for murder requires proving malice, bad motives, and that the person understood the act to be malicious and evil. These are incredibly difficult things to prove concerning abortion. Pro-lifers are better positioned when they define abortion precisely as the intentional killing of an innocent human being and insist that critics refute that specific syllogism, rather than reinventing the argument to focus on intent and legal definitions of murder. Stuckey was praised for her initial definition, which properly framed the issue as an unjustified, intentional killing.
Countering Intent and Emotion
Another line of attack involved the critics’ attempt to equate the internal sins described by Jesus in the New Testament (specifically Matthew 5:28 regarding lust leading to adultery, and Matthew 5:22 regarding anger leading to murder) with the motivations behind abortion. The critic tried to draw a parallel, asking if a pregnant woman undergoing an abortion is “angry with the baby”.
Stuckey effectively pushed back, acknowledging that Jesus emphasizes that sin is rooted in the heart, not just outward behavior. However, she refused to speculate on the feelings of every woman having an abortion, noting that some might be angry, scared, or simply not want to be pregnant. Crucially, she pivoted back to the core moral principle: regardless of the woman’s feelings, “ultimately it still leads to the same outcome that an innocent human being is being killed”.
The morality of the act is not determined by the feelings or intentions of the perpetrator. If a deranged parent kills a child they claim to like, the act is still wrong because the child is an innocent human being. Feelings about a person do not determine their humanity or the rightness or wrongness of killing them. By refusing to be drawn into a debate about emotion, Stuckey maintained focus on the intentional killing of an innocent human being, effectively navigating the critic’s attempt to change the subject.
Dismantling the Pain and Violence Argument
A subsequent critic targeted Stuckey’s use of the terms “violent” and “painful” to describe abortion. This gentleman argued that because the majority of abortions occur within the first six weeks, when pain receptors have not developed (only happening perhaps at 10 weeks or later), it is wrong to characterize the act as violent or painful.
Stuckey forcefully countered this argument by asking the critical question: “Is killing only wrong if someone can feel pain?”. She affirmed that abortion is violent, noting that even taking the abortion pill is violent because it starves the human being—whether called a zygote or a fetus—of the necessary nutrients. The fundamental flaw in the critic’s position is assuming that the capacity to feel pain is a value-giving trait that determines the rightness or wrongness of intentional killing.
This point was highlighted by using scenarios outside the womb: if a person is murdered in their sleep or shot and killed instantaneously, they feel no pain, yet a very bad act has still been committed. Stuckey “absolutely nailed him on this” by pushing back on the principle that intentional killing is acceptable if the victim cannot feel it.
When the critic attempted to deflect this logic by asserting, “Abortion is health care for women who need it”, Stuckey exposed the assertion’s baselessness and diversionary nature. She demanded: “Can you tell me another situation in which killing a person intentionally is health care?”. Killing an innocent person, she concluded, is inherently not health care.
Exposing Fallacies and Calling Bluffs
Throughout the engagement, critics frequently employed fallacious arguments and diversions in an attempt to destabilize Stuckey.
First, a critic attempted to misuse scripture, citing Matthew 26:24, where Jesus says it would have been better if Judas had never been born. The critic tried to argue that this statement undermined the pro-life claim that “each conception deserves to be birthed”. Stuckey provided a “great answer,” pointing out that Jesus was speaking figuratively about the judgment Judas would endure due to his unrepentant heart. Jesus was not condoning murder or abortion; rather, He meant it would have been preferable for Judas to have never been conceived than to face the wrath of a holy God. The theological ignorance of the critic was evident, rendering this argument a “total non-starter”.
Second, the critic raised the emotionally charged issues of rape and incest, asserting that these cases justified the procedure. Stuckey, noting that such cases constitute less than 1% of all abortions, immediately called his bluff. She proposed a hypothetical challenge: “If I said to you, ‘We will only allow abortion in those 1% of cases in which it’s rape or incest,’ would you agree with me to ban the rest of abortions?”. The critic immediately evaded the question and began to “dance and avoid,” confirming the use of these scenarios as mere rhetorical devices rather than principled arguments against the general wrongness of abortion.
Finally, a critic employed the Genetic Fallacy. After being cornered on the definition of healthcare, the critic pivoted, attacking the origins of the pro-life movement, claiming it was grounded in the segregationist thinking of the “religious right movement” and the “southern strategy” in the early 1980s. Stuckey was praised for not letting him successfully change the subject, as the genetic fallacy attempts to fault an idea based on its origins, rather than refuting the argument itself. Even if the origins were questionable, this fact would not refute the fundamental moral syllogism that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Stuckey was applauded for continuously forcing the critics to apply their logic consistently to people both inside and outside the womb, refusing to allow diversions.
Conclusion: A Model for Persuasive Dialogue
Allie Beth Stuckey’s interaction with her progressive Christian critics provided an essential blueprint for effective pro-life engagement. She demonstrated that persuasive dialogue hinges not just on rhetorical skill but on stateliness, intellectual preparedness, and unwavering focus. She consistently forced opponents to defend the fundamental principles they advanced, preventing them from shifting the goalposts or relying on emotional appeals, fallacies, or unsupported assertions. By maintaining a respectful and civil tone while simultaneously demonstrating mastery of the material, Stuckey set a high standard, showing that Christians must be “tough-minded… who know how to be statesmen and stateswomen” in defending a biblical worldview.
Analogy to solidify understanding: Allie Beth Stuckey’s performance was like a master chess player facing twenty novice opponents simultaneously. While the novices tried various tricky opening moves (like emotional appeals or logical fallacies), Stuckey didn’t allow them to dictate the game. She defined the board (the syllogism), focused on the main objective (the humanity of the unborn), and calmly countered every attempt to divert the piece, securing a win based on strategy and intellectual discipline, rather than brute force.