Article adapted from episode content.
It’s often the case that when discussing abortion, the focus shifts from the central issue—the nature of the unborn—to irrelevant personal accusations. It’s common to hear things like, “You don’t trust women,” or “You devalue women by not letting them be their own moral agents.”
This is a deliberate attempt to change the subject and move away from the core of the matter. People will bring up issues like choice, privacy, trusting women, economic hardship, and countless other distractions. These issues are completely beside the point. Would anyone use those reasons to justify killing two or five-year-olds? Of course not. These are all red herrings designed to steer the conversation away from the real issue, which is: what is being killed in an abortion? Can we kill the unborn? The answer is yes, if—and only if—the unborn are not human.
Many people avoid this question, deeming it unanswerable, or religious. But the question of what kind of being the unborn is is not religious or philosophical; it is an empirical question, one that is answered by the science of embryology.
So, how do we respond when confronted with these diversions? There are three simple words that can completely change the direction of the conversation: “I agree”. When someone says, “You don’t trust women to make their own moral judgments,” do not get defensive and argue that you love women. Instead, say: “I agree. I agree with you completely that I am forcing my views on others. I agree with you that I am unjustly failing to trust women to make their own moral decisions. I agree with you that prolifers like me ought to butt out of this issue. I agree.” But there’s more to it. Follow that “I agree” with an “if.” “I agree if what, if the unborn are not human”.
This shifts the focus back to what really matters. The debate is not about who loves or values women, nor is it about privacy; it’s about what the unborn is. Can we kill the unborn? The answer is yes, if the unborn are not human. The onus is on those who support abortion to demonstrate that the unborn are not human, not simply assert or assume it. They must present sources and evidence.
It’s important to note that people often avoid arguing this point directly. They will ignore the question of humanity and instead say things like, “It doesn’t matter”. They will assume the unborn aren’t human without offering any support for their claim. This cannot be allowed to stand.
When you hear someone bring up choice, privacy, or trusting women, you should firmly say, “I agree,” then add, “if the unborn are not human,” but demand they argue their position with evidence and sources.
In many cases, such an approach will cause their argument to unravel. When forced to address the core issue—what is the unborn—and provide evidence, their position falls apart. The science of embryology is not on the side of those who support abortion. Embryology textbooks show that from the earliest stages of development, each of us began as a one-celled zygote. That was us back then. That wasn’t some other thing we evolved from. That was us.
Even a former head of Planned Parenthood said in his book that it is so evident it is surprising that anyone would question it. Furthermore, a peer-reviewed journal that supported abortion, stated that only through trickery and crafty language could anyone deny that the unborn are human from the point of fertilization.
The key is to always bring people back to the fundamental question: what is the unborn?. The abortion debate is not about choice, privacy, or trusting women. No one uses these arguments when discussing the lives of other human beings. They use those claims because they assume, without argument, that the unborn are not human.
Our pro-life argument comes down to a 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.
While it is possible this argument is mistaken, we will not surrender it without a fight. The burden of proof lies with those who want to deny the conclusion or show that the premises are incorrect. Asserting “choice” or “privacy” does not disprove the argument’s validity or soundness. The argument stands or falls based on its merits, not the person making it. It doesn’t matter if I’m the worst person in the world, my argument can still be true.
Most abortion discussions get personalized. People on the political left like to engage in the politics of personal destruction to defeat arguments with ad hominem personal attacks. So when people say I don’t value or trust women, I might just say, “Okay, maybe I’m bad. Could a bad person still make a good argument?” The answer is yes. Arguments are based on their merits.
It is vital to stick to the one question: what is the unborn?. If you get sidetracked, you lose. When attacked for being intolerant or uncaring, just say, “I agree. I agree with you. There should be no restrictions on abortion. I agree if the unborn are not human. But I need you to argue that. And until you do, I’m within my rights to stick to my well-reasoned case based on the science of embryology that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are indeed distinct, living, and whole human beings”.
Remember, it’s vital to stay focused on that one question: what is the unborn?. Don’t let people take you off message. Stick to the point and you’ll be fine in your next conversation.