Ask, “What kind of a world would it create if no one judged actions as right and wrong? The result would be anarchy. Is that the kind of society you really think we should be building?”

Continue, “The law legislates right and wrong behavior. Are you suggesting Christians should not be involved in the process of legislating what is right and wrong? What kind of a world would that create, if we only allowed non-Christians to write the law?”

Say, “Let’s explore that idea. Imagine we knew a mother living in poverty who couldn’t handle caring for her newborn anymore. What if we knew she were planning to kill her newborn? If we kept quiet, allowing her to kill the child, would that be loving toward the mother?”

Continue, “Is it really loving someone to allow them to plan and execute a crime? What kind of world would it create if we made that our principle for all immoral behavior, not just abortion?”

Some people really want to know whether rape justifies abortion. But other times this is an emotional ploy to trap you.

To find out if it’s a trap, say: “Rape is abhorrent, but did you know it accounts for less than one-half of a percent of all abortions? What if, for the sake of argument, I said I approved of abortion in the case of rape? Would you then agree with me that the other 99.5% of abortions are wrong?”

If they say, “No, I wouldn’t agree,” then you know they’re using the emotional topic of sexual assault to hide their radical view that all abortion is okay. Say, “Well, let’s discuss the majority of abortions first, and then, once we agree, we can come back to the emotionally complex topic of rape.”

If they say, “Yes, rape is the only time abortion is okay,” check out our response to this specific question.

Sometimes the word “danger” is redefined not to mean the mother’s life is in jeopardy but that she might have a difficult pregnancy. Find out which they mean to avoid giving the wrong answer.

Ask: “Do you mean the mom might die? Or do you mean she’ll be on bedrest, require certain medication, etc.?”

If the pregnancy will be difficult, but will not threaten the mom’s life, ask, “What should parents do when taking care of kids is hard? Kill them? Or find other solutions which don’t involve killing?”

If they mean the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, recall our position is that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent humans. If a pregnant mother’s life is in danger, there are two humans at risk. It is possible that, to avoid both dying, action might be required which would foresee but not intend the death of the other one.

This is not elective abortion, however. If we could save both, we would. It is not our choice that one of them would die. Rather, inadequacies of current technology prevent us from saving both.

See our fuller response to this specific question.

One of the biggest pitfalls is wasting energy arguing whether pro-lifers are compassionate, whether men should have a say, etc. This is an ad hominem logical fallacy—meaning it attacks the pro-life person instead of the case being made. These issues are irrelevant to the moral question of abortion.

Whether pro-life people, for example, are willing to adopt babies does not change the fact that it is objectively immoral to kill those babies.