Friends, welcome. Welcome to a crucial discussion about the challenges we face when advocating for the defenseless. I want to address a tactic that many of you, I know, have encountered time and time again: the deflection of substantive argument through personal attacks. Instead of engaging with the merits of your position, you find yourselves on the defensive, grilled about your motives, your character, and even your compassion. You’re labeled intolerant, hateful, uncaring – the list goes on. Today, I aim to equip you with the understanding and the confidence to recognize these attacks for what they are: paper tigers. They may roar loudly, but they lack any real substance when it comes to dismantling the truth.

How often, indeed, have those of us who stand for life been attacked rather than refuted? The answer, sadly, is almost daily. I recall a speech from not long ago where an individual attempted to corner pro-life advocates. He addressed a group of college students, targeting pro-life Christians specifically. His opening salvo was direct: “How many of you think abortion is murder? Raise your hand”. Naturally, many pro-life students responded affirmatively. His follow-up was designed to create discomfort and doubt: “Oh, really? Are you willing to prosecute women for murder if they have an abortion in a state where it’s been made illegal?”. The speaker recounts the students’ visible discomfort, their lack of immediate response. The speaker then presented his supposed trump card: “See, there goes your whole case. You say abortion is murder, but you won’t prosecute for it. Therefore, your case is invalid. We can just ignore it”.

But let us pause, as I urged then, and think critically. We on this show consistently emphasize a foundational truth: the pro-life case is formally presented as a logical syllogism. It goes like this:

• 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.

This syllogism, my friends, is the bedrock of our argument. It is crucial that you remember this, that you cling to it like glue, because the personal attacks directed at you invariably fail to address this central logic.

Consider the challenge about prosecuting women. Even if a pro-lifer were to argue against any legal consequences for the woman who undergoes an abortion, even if one were to concede an inconsistency in that position, does it in any way negate the premises of our syllogism? Absolutely not. It does not prove that the unborn are not human, nor does it establish the morality or permissibility of abortion. The core argument – that intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong and that abortion constitutes such an act – remains untouched. Remember our three key words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. These attacks do not refute it.

Let us take this further. Imagine I am the most inconsistent person imaginable, the absolute worst human being on the planet, evil to my core. Would my personal failings invalidate a sound and valid argument against abortion? The answer, emphatically, is no. An argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on the character of the person presenting it.

The same speaker then proceeded with another common personal attack: “Oh, you think that these children are human beings in the womb. You oppose abortion. How many unwanted kids have you adopted? None. There goes your whole case”. Again, we must stop and apply critical thought. How does my alleged unwillingness to adopt a child justify an abortionist ending that child’s life? The absurdity becomes clear when we apply the same logic to another scenario. If I were to demand, “Unless you agree to adopt my three sons by noon tomorrow, I shall execute them,” your response would rightly be one of revulsion. Your refusal to comply with my ultimatum would in no way justify my heinous act. Similarly, my personal adoption choices have no bearing whatsoever on the moral status of the unborn or the act of abortion. This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack, an assault on the person rather than the argument.

The fundamental flaw in these attacks lies in the inability, or perhaps the unwillingness, of many of our pro-abortion counterparts to separate the argument from the individual presenting it. They engage in what has been termed on the left as the “politics of personal destruction”. Their aim is often to discredit you, to make you look bad personally, rather than to undertake the difficult work of actually refuting your arguments. We see this play out when a governor signs a pro-life bill. The immediate response is often a barrage of personal accusations: he hates women, disrespects their dignity, wants them to die in back alleys. But even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that the governor held such reprehensible views (which I certainly do not believe to be the case for those who champion life), would that in any way invalidate the pro-life argument that the unborn are human and that intentionally killing them is wrong? Of course not. At best, such attacks might succeed in portraying that particular governor as a bad person, but bad people can still make sound arguments.

Here is another common personal attack: “Oh, you think abortion is murder? Are you willing to pick up a gun to stop it? If not, there goes your whole case”. The individual recounting his speech elaborated on this point, suggesting that if we would use lethal force to stop a neighbor from beating a toddler to death, our unwillingness to do the same to stop abortion reveals a lack of genuine belief in the personhood of the unborn. Again, we must dissect this faulty logic. Our personal actions, while they should ideally align with our beliefs, do not determine the validity of the argument itself. This principle extends beyond abortion; it applies to Christian theology as well. Critics often ask, “You really believe Christianity is true? Why don’t you live it out consistently? Why aren’t you exactly like Jesus?”. And again, the conclusion is drawn: “There goes your whole case”.

Now, let me be clear: as Christians, we are called to live sanctified lives, to show the fruit of our faith. We should strive to respond charitably to all we encounter. However, the truth of Christianity does not hinge on the perfect behavior of its adherents. As the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15, the foundation of our hope rests on the historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that event did not occur, then our faith is in vain. Critics often attempt to disprove Christianity by cataloging historical evils committed in the name of religion, such as the Crusades or the Salem witch hunts. While these events are indeed lamentable, they do not refute the historical evidence for the resurrection. The same principle applies to the pro-life issue. Attacks on pro-lifers for alleged inconsistencies do not negate the argument for the inherent value of unborn human life. Arguments, I repeat, stand or fall on their own merits, not the person making them.

Let us return to the question of using lethal force to stop abortion. What is the primary responsibility of a pro-life advocate in their public response to abortion? It is to work to dismantle the machinery of death, to ensure that all human beings, born and unborn, are protected in law. Does shooting an abortionist accomplish this goal? Of course not. Therefore, pro-lifers are under no obligation to engage in such acts. Consider the example of World War II. Leading up to D-Day, Allied troops were deployed behind enemy lines. These soldiers, disguised as Germans, fully believed in the evil of the Nazi regime and the genocide they were perpetrating. Yet, upon landing, they did not immediately begin shooting individual German soldiers. Why? Because they were focused on a larger strategic objective: gathering intelligence, mapping landing sites, and laying the groundwork for the major invasion. Were these soldiers somehow compromising their beliefs or committing crimes against humanity by not engaging in individual acts of violence? No. They understood that their task was a more strategic one, aimed at achieving a more comprehensive victory.

Similarly, it can be reasonably argued, even setting aside any moral considerations about violence, that the primary goal of the pro-life movement is to secure legal protection for all unborn human beings. Our political activism, our advocacy, our educational efforts are all directed toward this end. We often work incrementally, seeking to achieve legal protections step by step. The fact that we do not engage in individual acts of violence against abortion providers does not signify a betrayal of our ultimate goal or an inconsistency in our beliefs. Inconsistency would only arise if we declared the unborn human and abortion wrong but took no political action to protect them. Demanding that we take up arms is a nonsensical distraction. Consider the situation in Ukraine. Many of us believe that Russia has committed horrific crimes against humanity. Yet, how many of us have taken up arms to intervene? Our lack of personal involvement does not negate the reality of those crimes or justify them. The argument against abortion, like the condemnation of war crimes, stands on its own moral foundation.

Another personal attack frequently leveled against pro-lifers is the accusation that they are “pro-birth” rather than truly “pro-life”. The argument goes: if you genuinely cared about life, you would dedicate equal time and resources to helping refugees, fighting poverty and inequality, supporting open immigration policies, and addressing all forms of injustice. The failure to do so, according to this line of attack, invalidates the pro-life stance. Tragically, many Christians, who should know better, have fallen prey to this false dichotomy, believing that true pro-life advocacy requires embracing a “whole life” agenda, tackling every issue of human injustice with equal fervor. They are made to feel that unless they do so, their Christian witness is compromised, and they fail as champions of life. This, I say unequivocally, is pure nonsense. Any pro-life leader who tells you that being pro-life necessitates engaging in a million different issues is a leader you should dismiss. They are, perhaps unintentionally, aiding the opposition by diluting pro-life resources and confusing the core mission.

The task of the pro-life movement is singular: to achieve legal protection for all unborn human beings. Consider the absurdity of applying the same “whole life” standard to other organizations. No one would tell the American Heart and Lung Association that they lack credibility because they focus on pulmonary and cardiac issues rather than treating cancer, diabetes, and Crohn’s disease. Similarly, no one would criticize an ER physician for saving a drug addict’s life but not simultaneously addressing the patient’s housing situation, job prospects, or family dynamics. The doctor’s heroic act of saving a life in immediate danger stands on its own merit. Pro-lifers are on the front lines, acting as emergency responders for the unborn. It does not logically follow that we must solve every societal ill in the wake of saving an innocent life.

The reality is that pro-life organizations operate with significantly fewer resources than many other humanitarian aid organizations that address issues like poverty and refugee crises. These organizations often benefit from substantial and consistent donations. To demand that pro-lifers spread their already scarce resources even thinner across a multitude of issues is fundamentally unfair. As individual Christians, we certainly can and should care about a wide range of injustices, from sex trafficking to the plight of refugees. Our faith calls us to a broad ethic of compassion. And it is perfectly acceptable to donate and support these other worthy causes. However, to insist that pro-life organizations must equally engage in all these battles is a strategic misdirection that weakens our ability to focus on our primary mission: ending abortion.

Often, well-meaning Christians lack the courage to push back against this “pro-birth” accusation. They worry about appearing uncaring or narrow-minded to secular critics who claim we only care about the unborn. Instead of challenging this false premise – instead of asking, “How does opposing the intentional killing of an innocent human being necessitate fixing every other societal problem?” – many evangelical leaders, concerned about appearing “seeker-sensitive,” have unfortunately adopted the critics’ framework. They mistakenly believe that credibility requires addressing a laundry list of social issues. But even if pro-lifers were to be considered narrow-minded for focusing on abortion, how does that in any way refute the argument that abortion is wrong? It does not. It remains a personal attack, a change of subject.

The truth, which many pro-life leaders seem hesitant to articulate forcefully, is this: the demand for a “whole life” agenda as a prerequisite for pro-life credibility is a bogus tactic. To demonstrate this, simply ask the critic who accuses you of being too narrow, “Okay, if pro-lifers do everything you demand – if we dedicate equal time and resources to refugees, immigration issues, poverty, daycare centers, drug addiction, and every other cause you deem worthy, in equal measure to saving unborn babies – will you then join us in opposing abortion?”. The answer, I can assure you with absolute certainty, is no. One hundred percent of the time, they will revert to their fundamental belief in a woman’s right to choose. It is a smoke screen, a deliberate distraction from the pro-life argument that they are afraid to confront directly.

Our argument, the pro-life syllogism, is sound and valid. “It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion does that. Therefore, it is wrong”. If our critics possess the intellectual capacity to refute this argument, let them try. We are ready to engage with genuine counterarguments. But to resort to personal attacks, to change the subject entirely, is a cowardly tactic, the refuge of those who are intellectually weak and unwilling to engage in honest debate.

So, if you are a pro-lifer, remember the three key words: syllogism, syllogism, syllogism. If they have not refuted your pro-life argument, your syllogism, they have not refuted you. They have merely changed the subject and attacked you personally. This is the level of argumentation we often see from pre-teens. When faced with consequences for their actions, they deflect with personal insults. Your mother’s wig or your father’s wardrobe have no bearing on whether chores were completed. Similarly, the behavior or perceived shortcomings of individual pro-lifers do not invalidate the moral argument against abortion.

For resources to effectively counter these types of arguments, I encourage you to explore our pro-life 101 course. My book, The Case for Life, also provides a comprehensive analysis of common objections to the pro-life view and equips you to articulate your position with courage and confidence.

My friends, we live in an age where courage is often lacking. Many Christians hesitate to speak out on issues like abortion, fearing the disapproval of others more than the judgment of God. As a colleague aptly put it, they worship peace instead of the Prince of Peace. But being a follower of Christ sometimes requires us to courageously counter the flawed and destructive ideas of our culture. Our culture, make no mistake, embraces the killing of children in the womb. And for speaking out against this injustice, you will face hatred, just as Jesus himself warned. Why? Because Christians challenge the very ideas that undermine human flourishing.

So, what is our response? We must put on our spiritual armor. We must be confident in the truth we uphold. We must stand for Christ and for the innocent, even if it costs us everything. Because ultimately, it is our eternal destiny that matters, not the fleeting approval of this world. Courage in the face of these personal attacks stems from a deep and unwavering confidence in the truth of the pro-life case. Hold fast to the syllogism, recognize the ad hominem fallacies for what they are, and speak with the boldness that comes from knowing you stand for what is right.