Less is More

Article adapted from episode content.

In today’s fast-paced, “soundbite culture,” the ability to articulate complex ideas concisely and persuasively is no longer just a useful skill—it’s a vital necessity, especially for those advocating for the pro-life position. We live in an era that Neil Postman described in Amusing Ourselves to Death as a “picture-oriented culture” that is “absolutely distracted”. Unlike 160 years ago, when learning involved reading books, newspapers, and listening to speeches that often lasted hours, our minds are now trained to jump from one decontextualized piece of information to another, often via our phones. This constant scrolling and jumping from social media to email, messages, and other apps trains our minds “not to think deeply or to think in a way that helps us get at the truth”. Instead, it fosters a “scatterbrained approach” to understanding the world.

For pro-lifers, this cultural shift presents a significant challenge: how can one defend deeply held convictions about abortion in a way that is “persuasive, true, and well-reasoned,” yet concise enough to penetrate the limited attention spans of a distracted public?. This article aims to equip advocates with the tools to do just that, whether they have a minute or even as little as seven seconds to make their case.

The One-Minute Defense: A Philosophical Foundation

Imagine being asked in a philosophy class at UCLA, “You don’t support a woman’s right to choose. Why are you pro-life?”. The key is to deliver a clear, logical argument that is accessible to everyone, regardless of their religious background, and short enough to hold attention.

A powerful one-minute defense can be framed as follows: “I am pro-life because it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. The science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, from the one-cell stage, you were a distinct, living, and whole human being. You weren’t part of another human being like skin cells on my hand. You were already a whole living member of the human family, even though you had yet to grow and develop. And there’s no essential difference between that embryo you once were and the adult you are today that would justify killing you back then”.

This defense purposefully avoids quoting Bible verses, catechisms, or theological traditions, making it comprehensible and followable for even a non-Christian audience. It distills the pro-life stance to its core ethical and scientific premises, emphasizing the continuity of human life from conception.

Defending the Defense: The SLED Test

After presenting such a concise summary, a common pushback might be: “Why should I believe that an embryo the size of a dot has any identity or right to life?”. To address such objections, a powerful tool known as the SLED test can be employed, which stands for Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. These are common arguments used to dehumanize or deny the personhood of an embryo or fetus, but each contains a “hidden and undefended premise” that proves to be illogical upon scrutiny.

Let’s break down each component of the SLED test:

• Size (S): Critics often point to an embryo’s small size, suggesting it has less value. However, this argument rests on the undefended premise that “large people have a greater right to life than small people and that body size determines your right to life”. This principle is absurd when tested: Do men, who are generally larger than women, have more fundamental rights simply due to their size?. Clearly, body size does not determine a person’s value or right to life. Those who argue otherwise must defend this assertion, not merely state it.

• Level of Development (L): Another common argument is that an embryo “isn’t developed yet,” lacking traits like abstract thought, self-awareness, or consciousness. The hidden premise here is that “your body’s level of development or some cognitive trait that springs from that development like self-awareness is what gives you value and a right to life”. This approach creates a “tremendous inequality problem”. If value and rights are based on fluctuating cognitive traits, then individuals with varying levels of these traits would have unequal rights. Furthermore, this logic extends beyond embryos and fetuses; newborns are not fully self-aware, and toddlers don’t achieve “real self-awareness” until almost three years of age. If cognitive traits are the decisive factor, the logical conclusion would be that killing newborns and toddlers is also permissible, a conclusion most people would reject.

• Environment (E): Some argue that a fetus, being in the mother’s womb, lacks a right to life because “where you are determines what you are”. This premise is demonstrably absurd. Advances in fetal medicine illustrate this: surgeons can now remove a child from the womb for surgery, then return them to be born normally at 40 weeks. Does the child cease to be a valuable human person while outside the womb for surgery, only to become a non-person again upon reinsertion?. “Where you are does not determine what you are”.

• Degree of Dependency (D): Finally, critics might argue that dependency on another human being negates a right to life, suggesting that only an “individual independent existence” grants value. This premise, too, is left undefended. The Hensel twins, Abigail and Brittany, offer a compelling counter-example. These conjoined twins share vital organs and a circulatory system, meaning they cannot be separated without killing both. If dependency on another human being negates a right to life, then neither of these girls would have one. This conclusion is universally recognized as unacceptable, demonstrating that dependency does not justify intentional killing.

By applying the SLED test, one can philosophically dismantle the common arguments against embryonic and fetal personhood, showing that “none of those are good reasons for saying we could kill you then as an embryo, but not today as an adult”.

The Seven-Second Statement: Political Prudence

For politicians, the challenge of concise communication is even more acute, often limited to “7 seconds to get a sound bite out there” that will make it past a news editor’s desk. In such high-pressure scenarios, a politician needs a statement that is clear, to the point, and resilient to media manipulation.

The recommended seven-second defense for a pro-life candidate is remarkably simple: “I am pro-life because it’s wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.“.

The instruction is to “Stop. Rinse. Repeat. Say nothing more”. The press, the source explains, will immediately follow with “a million ‘what about’ statements” concerning rape, incest, poverty, or family size, aiming to derail the message. By sticking to the core principle, a politician avoids being led into complex discussions or “fields of expertise you may not be trained in,” which can be far more damaging than being accused of not saying enough. This succinct statement “truthfully conveys the logic of our view without saying too much that can get you tripped up” and cannot easily be cut by an editor to make the candidate “look bad”. While a candidate may offer a more detailed, well-reasoned statement on their website, the on-camera soundbite must be strategically brief and impactful.

The Larger Picture: Saving the Republic

Beyond individual arguments and political soundbites, the long-term success of the pro-life cause is inextricably linked to the preservation of the nation’s foundational principles. Some frustrated pro-life advocates wonder if their votes matter when progress on the pro-life front seems slow, even with a supportive administration. However, the speaker argues that “if you lose the republic, you lose any hope of advancing pro-life legislation”.

A historical parallel is drawn to John Adams during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. Adams, in his wisdom, agreed to remove anti-slavery language to secure the southern states’ entry into the Union, despite concerns from abolitionists. Adams understood he was playing a “long game”. By getting southern states to sign a document that promoted “natural rights” based on humanity—not skin color, cognitive ability, or social skills—he simplified the slavery debate to a single question: “is the slave a man like us?”. Furthermore, drawing the slaveholding states into the Union meant that the principles of natural rights would gradually “permeate the culture” and eventually exert pressure to abolish slavery, a feat that would be impossible if they remained independent nations.

Today, the nation faces a similar, perhaps even more profound, divide—a “civil war” of worldviews. The conservative, biblical worldview posits that human beings are “special creations endowed by their creator with rights and value that is not based on performance or what we might think or desire”. In contrast, the “woke leftist worldview” asserts that human identity is “totally constructed socially” by desire, and that right and wrong are mere “constructs of your own preference”. This is not merely a political divide; it’s a fundamental difference in how reality itself is perceived.

The speaker emphasizes the critical stakes: “If the woke leftist worldview gains ascendancy in this country permanently, if it ultimately wins and carries the day, the prolife cause is dead. It’s over”. Worse, it could lead to a situation like in the UK, where citizens are imprisoned simply for expressing their pro-life views, indicating a loss of freedom of speech. Therefore, “if you lose the structure of the republic, you lose the ability to advance the pro-life cause”. Acknowledging progress made by the current administration in preserving the republic, even if abortion isn’t always “front and center,” is essential for pro-lifers. The ultimate fight, therefore, is to “save the republic” to ensure the continued possibility of advancing pro-life legislation and defending human life.

In essence, whether in a minute, seven seconds, or over the course of decades, the principle remains: less is more. Concise, well-reasoned, and strategic communication, grounded in fundamental truths, is the most effective way to defend the pro-life position in a deeply distracted and divided world, while simultaneously engaging in the larger battle for the nation’s soul.