Article adapted from episode content.

Our aim is simple: to equip you to make a persuasive case for the pro-life position with friends and acquaintances, even those who don’t share your worldview. Often, people view the pro-life stance as narrow-minded or intolerant, wondering why Christians oppose abortion, in vitro fertilization, or doctor-assisted suicide. The key to overcoming these objections lies in clearly stating the pro-life argument and understanding the common, yet flawed, responses to it.

The Foundation: A Clearly Stated Argument

In any debate, especially one as sensitive as the pro-life issue, clarity is paramount. Begin with a clearly stated argument, not insults or personal attacks. Remember, arguments stand or fall apart from the people making them. A flawed individual can still make a valid point, and dismissing an argument based on dislike or personal bias is a fallacy. The core pro-life argument can be expressed as a simple syllogism:

• Premise One: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
• Premise Two: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
• Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.

This argument, while simple, forms the basis for the pro-life position. It is an argument that must be engaged, refuted, or accepted. It moves beyond subjective opinions or feelings and focuses on objective claims that can be defended with science and philosophy.

The Scientific Pillar: Embryology

Science, specifically embryology, provides crucial support for the pro-life argument. Embryology makes it clear that from the earliest stages of development, even the one-cell stage, a distinct, living, and whole human being exists. This is not merely a “clump of cells” but a unique member of the human family directing its own development from within. Unlike skin cells or sperm and egg, which are parts of larger human beings, the embryo is a distinct and complete individual. Textbooks on embryology, such as Langman’s Embryology or Keith Moore’s “The Developing Human,” corroborate this understanding.

The Philosophical Pillar: Addressing Moral Relevance

While science reveals what the unborn is, philosophy helps us determine how we should treat the unborn. Here, the critical question is: are there any morally relevant differences between an embryo and an adult that justify ending the embryo’s life?.

Stephen Schwarz identifies four main differences, summarized by the acronym SLED: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. However, none of these differences provide a sound basis for denying the unborn a right to life:

• Size: A two-year-old is smaller than a twenty-year-old, but that doesn’t mean the two-year-old has less of a right to life.
• Level of Development: Asserting that a certain level of development is required for the right to life is arbitrary unless supported by a valid argument.
• Environment: A change in location, such as moving from one room to another, doesn’t change one’s inherent value. Similarly, birth should not be seen as a transformation from a non-human to a human being.
• Degree of Dependency: Dependency on another person doesn’t justify killing. Newborns are dependent on their mothers, but we would consider it monstrous for a mother to neglect or harm her child based on this dependency.

Since these differences fail to establish a moral justification for killing an embryo, the philosophical pillar reinforces the pro-life stance.

Making the Case in a Minute or Less

The ability to articulate the pro-life argument concisely is invaluable. Imagine you’re at Thanksgiving dinner with Aunt Betty, who is not a Christian and doesn’t understand your pro-life views. Here’s a response you can deliver in under a minute:

“Aunt Betty, I’m pro-life because it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, you were a distinct, living, and whole human being. There is no essential difference between you as an embryo and you as an adult that justifies killing you at that earlier stage. Differences in size, level of development, environment, and dependency are not good reasons to say we could kill you then but not now.”

Notice that this response avoids religious jargon or biblical citations. By appealing to science and philosophy, it engages Aunt Betty on a level she can’t dismiss as mere personal opinion. This approach focuses on shared understandings of science, reason, and value, laying the groundwork for a productive discussion.

Navigating Common (and Flawed) Responses

Do not expect Aunt Betty to immediately embrace your views. Instead, be prepared for common objections, many of which are fundamentally flawed. Recognizing these bad arguments will allow you to respond effectively:

1. Assuming Rather Than Arguing: This involves assuming the unborn aren’t human without providing any evidence. Examples include statements like, “Why don’t you respect a woman’s right to choose?” or “Why do you reject a right to privacy?”. These arguments wouldn’t justify killing a toddler, so they’re only used in the context of abortion because of the underlying assumption that the unborn are not human.

   • Your Response: “I’m open-minded. If you can give me an argument that the unborn are not human, I’ll consider your point of view. However, I need you to argue for that, not merely assume it.”

2. Attacking Rather Than Arguing: This involves attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself. For example, “You’re a man, you can’t get pregnant, so you have no right to speak on this issue”.

   • Your Response: “Arguments don’t have gender. Focus on the merits of the argument, not the person making it.”

3. Asserting Rather Than Arguing: This involves making claims without providing any evidence or logical reasoning. For example, “Women have a right to choose”. This is a statement without any supporting evidence.

   • Your Response: “Why ought I believe that? What’s your evidence for that claim?”

4. Confusing Preference Claims with Moral Claims: This involves dismissing the pro-life argument as a mere matter of personal preference. For example, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one, but don’t impose your views on others”.

   • Your Response: “I’m not making a claim about what I like; I’m making an objective truth claim that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.”

5. Hiding Behind Hard Cases: This involves focusing on difficult scenarios like rape or the life of the mother to justify abortion in all cases.

   • Your Response: “Let’s grant abortion in cases of rape for the sake of argument. Will you then join me in opposing all other abortions?” This will expose whether their concern is genuine or simply a smokescreen for supporting unrestricted abortion.

By recognizing these flawed arguments, you can steer the conversation towards a more productive and honest discussion about the core issues at stake.

Conclusion

Making a persuasive case for the pro-life position doesn’t require complex rhetoric or aggressive tactics. It requires a clear understanding of the central argument, a grasp of the scientific and philosophical foundations, and the ability to address common objections effectively. By focusing on these simple yet powerful tools, you can confidently engage in meaningful conversations and advocate for the value and protection of all human life.