Article adapted from episode content.

Maintaining composure during contentious discussions regarding the intentional killing of an innocent human being is paramount for those advocating the pro-life position. When engaging critics, often referred to as “hotheads,” the challenge is not just the strength of the arguments presented, but managing one’s demeanor under pressure. Failures in persuasiveness often stem from appearing defensive, angry, or rattled, regardless of the merit of the arguments being presented. Learning how to stay cool under fire requires implementing specific strategies for both maintaining emotional control and strategically addressing objections.

I. The Foundational Tactic: Controlling the Demeanor

The immediate response to verbal intensity must be intentional non-escalation. When faced with opponents who “ratchet up the volume” or speed up their speech, matching that intensity leads only to appearing defensive. A crucial tactic for appearing in control is to slow down, keep one’s volume at a normal level, and maintain conversation even if interrupted. This deliberate control over demeanor is so vital that, when preparing for debates, writing reminders like “slow down” and “calm” with an exclamation mark at the top of note-taking folders serves as a necessary psychological anchor.

Controlling one’s demeanor is surprisingly effective, as outsiders often look to the person who seems more in control of the environment during debates and discussions. Discussions have shown that individuals presenting very poor arguments can still appear respectable if they seem settled, calm, and unrattled. Conversely, a defensive or angry appearance can undermine even the best arguments.

II. Strategic Engagement: The Power of Clarifying Questions

A highly effective method for dialing down the temperature and gaining control of a discussion is asking clarifying questions. This tactic helps to “flip the script” and shows respect by demonstrating that the objection is being taken seriously, while simultaneously placing the burden of proof back on the critic.

If a critic attacks the pro-life advocate with aggressive language—for instance, calling the view stupid or moronic because it affords rights to a fetus lacking self-awareness or cognitive development—the advocate should respond by slowing down and gently asking for clarification. A useful prompt is: “That’s interesting. I agree that self-awareness is something we should talk about. Tell me what you mean by self-awareness“.

Forcing the critic to clarify their terms reveals potential flaws or implications in their worldview. If “self-awareness” is defined as actual self-awareness, it implies that persons could be killed while sleeping or under anesthesia during surgery. If it means the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, it might protect someone sleeping but not someone under anesthesia. Furthermore, if value is grounded in fully developed brain architecture, which for males doesn’t finalize until after age 26 and for females until the early 20s, that criterion raises severe complications. If temporary brain damage were to occur, value and the right to life would cease under a brain architecture standard.

The Defence of Human Nature

When pressed for clarification, the critic may assert that value is tied to being the type of being that can have self-awareness. However, this shift in focus inadvertently strengthens the pro-life case. The pro-life argument maintains that human value is not grounded in immediately exercisable functions but in human nature. Human beings are rational beings and self-aware by nature. Traits like rationality and self-awareness may fluctuate or be absent during various periods of life, yet the individual remains a valuable human being because their value is grounded in their inherent nature.

The advocate should further inquire: “Tell me, why does self-awareness matter in the first place?“. Critics who claim that self-awareness is value-giving must defend why that trait, as opposed to arbitrary characteristics like ear size or belly button position, confers the right to life. Assertion is not the same as argument; a defense of why these specific things matter is required.

Exposing the Price of Function-Based Value

Pointing out the logical implications of grounding value in function helps maintain control. If value and the right to life are based on self-awareness, human equality is impossible because no two individuals share self-awareness equally. A person fueled by caffeine, whose “synapses are firing on all cylinders,” would, under this standard, be more valuable than someone currently experiencing a cognitive lull due to fatigue or high carbohydrate intake.

Moreover, grounding value in immediate function incurs a “high price on who gets disqualified”. If the standard is the immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness, it is not just fetuses who lose their right to life, but also newborns. Latest research even suggests that toddlers do not view themselves as self-aware until roughly age two or later, meaning they, too, could be disqualified under this standard. By using good questions to point out these implications, the advocate can shift from the defensive “hot seat” to the “driver’s seat”.

A historical example underscores this strategy: a Canadian politician, who was conservative, maintained composure while aggressively grilled by a journalist seeking to “trap and frame” him. When the journalist labeled him an “extremist,” the politician calmly replied, “Tell me what you mean by an extremist”. This simple question exposed the journalist’s lack of reasoned definition, effectively making the accuser look unprepared.

III. When Prudence Dictates Disengagement

Not all encounters are opportunities for discussion; some critics are purely interested in winning through intimidation. Some individuals, described as “hotheads,” have zero interest in considering an alternative viewpoint. Engaging those who merely want to scream or “spill all their emotion out” is not mandatory.

As a matter of prudence, it can be virtuous to simply leave a discussion where there is no openness to dialogue. A tactic for determining whether a true discussion is possible is to ask the critic directly: “It seems to me like you’ve got a lot of points you want to make, but I’m not sensing you really want to hear what I have to say… Would you rather just make your points and I’ll just listen, or do you actually want to have a discussion?”. If it is clear they are only emoting and not making arguments, the advocate is not obligated to listen to “that garbage” and can leave.

IV. A Strategic Framework: Categorizing Objections

To avoid getting defensive due to a lack of confidence in responding to the sheer volume of objections, pro-life advocates should employ a strategy for slotting every objection into a manageable category. This approach prevents the need for “rote memory” of every possible counter-argument. Training seminars often teach the “five bad ways people argue about abortion”. These five poor approaches are: assuming rather than arguing, attacking rather than arguing, asserting rather than arguing, confusing preference claims with moral claims, and hiding behind the hard cases.

A. Assuming Rather Than Arguing

This category encompasses objections that assume the unborn are not human without offering any argument to support that premise. Examples include: “Why don’t you trust women?” or “Why do you want to force your moral views on someone?”. Similarly, arguments based on privacy, abortion stopping crime, or reducing child abuse all presuppose that the unborn lack human status. When a politician defends “reproductive freedom” because it is “good for everyone,” they assume that “everyone” systematically excludes the unborn, ignoring the fact that dismemberment or poisoning is certainly not good for the fetus. Recognizing the assumption allows the advocate to ignore the specifics of the objection and return to the main point: establishing the humanity of the unborn.

B. Attacking Rather Than Arguing (Ad Hominem)

This is the category where Christian advocates most frequently lose their cool. Opponents employ personal attacks, labeling the advocate as a “Christian narrow-minded misogynist” or even drawing comparisons to Hitler. The natural defensive response—denying the labels—is ineffective and causes the advocate to appear rattled.

The better approach is to let the critic finish and then calmly ask: “Suppose I am all those things… How does that refute the argument I’m making that it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings?”. The fundamental principle is that arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on personalities. For instance, a pro-life argument holds its merit whether it is delivered by a man or a woman, because arguments do not have gender.

The same logic applies to claims of inconsistency, such as: “How many unwanted kids have you adopted?”. Even if the advocate has adopted none and hypothetically cares nothing for children once born (which is generally untrue), this alleged inconsistency does not justify an abortionist killing a child. The critic must refute the argument itself, not merely attack the alleged failings of the person making it.

C. Asserting Rather Than Arguing

This refers to critics who make rights claims without providing any foundation, such as asserting that “a woman has a right to choose”. The advocate is within their rights to ask: “Choose what? And where does that right to choose come from?“.

Forcing the critic to be explicit reveals they are asserting the right to intentionally kill a human fetus. If they ground this right in government actions (like Roe v. Wade), they must explain why they are angry at the Dobbs decision, as the same court that grants a right can take it away. The goal is to make people defend what they are asserting, preventing them from “plucking rights out of thin air”.

D. Confusing Preference Claims with Moral Claims

The pro-life position—”abortion is wrong because it intentionally kills an innocent human being”—is an objective moral claim, asserting that the act is wrong regardless of personal likes or dislikes. Poor arguers attempt to change this objective claim into a subjective claim, treating the discussion as if it were about a favorite flavor of ice cream. This is an attempt to change the subject, often driven by the worldview of relativism. The advocate must prevent the critic from shifting the focus from objective right and wrong to personal preferences.

E. Hiding Behind the Hard Cases

The final common argumentative error is when critics refuse to defend their true position and instead hide behind the hard cases, such as ectopic pregnancy, cases involving the mother’s life, or rape.

The pro-abortion position typically argues that abortion is a fundamental right that a woman can exercise for any reason (e.g., affordability, already having enough children). Instead of defending this radical claim, the critic attempts to “disguise how radical their own position really is” by focusing on the victim of sexual assault.

To neutralize this tactic, the advocate must call the critic’s bluff. The advocate can say: “Let’s say for the sake of argument, we grant that abortion should be legal in cases of rape. If I make that concession, will you join me now in opposing all other abortions that have nothing to do with rape?“. The answer is almost invariably “no,” proving that their real position is far more extreme and that they were merely hiding behind a tragic case. The advocate’s primary job is to keep the discussion focused on the main thing: whether abortion, in general, is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

By practicing these strategic methods—maintaining a calm demeanor, utilizing clarifying questions, and categorizing flawed objections—the pro-life advocate can remain in charge of the discussion and successfully keep the main thing the main thing.