Instagram Facebook Twitter Youtube Apple
Pregnant? Need Help?
Donate

Your Conversation Navigator

This guide will help you navigate the conversation with pointers of what to say and how to say it. But it is up to you to work it into a natural dialogue.

Conversations require at least two people. That means you have two different stories, possibly two different worldviews, and plenty of opportunities for confusion. But meaningful dialogue is still possible. Our team creates it every day, and so can you.

Click through the navigator below. Then hit “continue” to start the conversation.

Know the Case

To be effective, dialogue must be well-informed. Start with these three lines clarifying why abortion is wrong:

  1. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
  2. Elective abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
  3. Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

In discussions about abortion, most pro-choice people ironically want to talk about everything except abortion. They prefer to talk about the mother’s circumstances or other related topics. But while those matter, it is not too much to ask that a conversation about abortion be about abortion.

To make that happen, you must have clarity on why abortion is wrong. That way when the conversation veers off course, you can identify it right away and get back on track.

Bring Photos

Good navigation requires good tools. To call others to action, start with pictures of the victims you want to help. 

Say, “You and I might have a lot to say about abortion, but this isn’t our story. It’s really about the actual people killed by abortion. They can’t speak, but they can tell their stories visually. I’d like to show them to you.”

download pictures from our gallery. Order handouts from our store.

Ask, “Have you seen pictures of Jewish Holocaust victims or people brutalized by American human slavery? If so, why not also look at pictures of innocent people being killed today?”

Read more about the importance of abortion victim photos in our online questions.

Find Common Ground

To find out where to take the conversation, start with where you agree. Say, “In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ directs us to help our neighbors in need. Do you agree?”

They will likely say, “Yes.” 

Then ask, “Shouldn’t that include the more than 2,000 preborn babies killed by abortion every day in the US?”

then you know you agree on the moral principle of helping those in need. You just disagree on the humanity of preborn babies.

then you know you agree on the moral principle of helping those in need. You just disagree on whether humans who are different from you count as one of us.

then you know your conversation should focus on the nature of parenthood—whether parents have obligations toward their children.

then switch to our Conversation Navigator for people who are pro-life but inactive (insert link to Navigator6B).

Point to Truth

Now that you know where you disagree, you can chart a course pointing toward truth.

say, “The Bible is clear that all humans are made in God’s image (Gen 1:16-27.). So we know that preborn humans are image-bearers of God. So on what basis would you say some image-bearers aren’t persons?”

They will likely point to a difference between preborn and born humans, which will fall into one of the following categories: Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependency (remember the acronym SLED) (See Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 28.). Click each category below to see how to respond.

They say, “The embryo is so little. It can’t be a person like us.”

You say, “A toddler is smaller than both of us, but she’s still a person. So, size must be irrelevant to our personhood.”

They say, “The embryo isn’t self-aware, can’t communicate, have rational thought, etc.”

Ask, “Why does that matter? How do you know being self-aware/communicating/having rational thought/etc. gives humans value?”

Say, “A toddler is less self-aware than we are/can’t communicate like we can/etc. She’s less developed than we are. But she’s still a person. So, level of development must be irrelevant to our personhood.”

They say, “Being inside someone else means the embryo can’t be a unique person like us.”

You say, “Where you are doesn’t change who you are. When you leave your home to go to work or school, changing environments doesn’t change your value as a person or affect your human rights. The same is true for the preborn baby.”

They say, “Because the embryo needs someone else, it can’t be a person.”

You say, “Children depend on their parents. That doesn’t make them non-persons or strip them of human rights. So, dependency must be irrelevant to personhood.”

Ask: “Why would it be different with younger babies? We agree parents are obligated to use their bodies to care for their born babies—whether it be by breastfeeding or using hands to bottle-feed. So shouldn’t we also expect parents to use their bodies to care for preborn babies?” 

If they respond by saying the embryo isn’t really a baby, you need to alter your course. Now you know the real disagreement is whether the embryo is a living human who counts as a person. Check out how to respond to those ideas above.

Ask: “If parents deny nourishment to their born baby and she starves, did they do anything wrong?” Point to news stories of parents doing this and ask if those parents acted morally. 

If they change their mind and agree that parents are obligated to use their bodies to provide for born children, go to “If they say, ‘Yes,’” above in this section.

She can make an adoption/foster care plan or kill the child. One of these is moral and thus in line with the Bible. The other is not. The same is true for pregnant mothers. There is a biblical way to sever the ties of parenthood, but it is not by severing the baby’s body limb from limb by abortion. The biblical option is adoption or foster care.”

Follow Their Ideas

Sometimes you will have to take a detour. That’s because many people won’t change their minds on something until they understand problems with their current thinking.

So, follow their ideas to show where they would lead. Here are some examples:

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?”

The embryo isn’t actually part of the mother, so the idea here is not that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Instead, the argument is women can do whatever they want no matter how it affects their children.

What is the logical conclusion? Women should be able to do anything no matter how it affects any children—born or preborn.

Expose this bad thinking. Ask: “Imagine a mother drowns her toddler in the bathtub and says, ‘I used my hands. My hands, my choice.’ Would that be moral?”

They’ll probably say, “No.” Then you ask, “What’s the difference?” and redirect your conversation based on how they respond. See “Find Common Ground” above.

More compassionate than what? Point to your pictures of aborted babies and ask, “Is that really compassionate?”

Then ask: “Is it more compassionate to alleviate suffering or eliminate sufferers?”

Watch Out for Pitfalls

There are some common obstacles on the path of the Christian response to abortion. Watch out for these.

Say, “Many of the men and women who fought chattel slavery in America were Christians doing so because of theological convictions. I think this was a good thing. What about you?”

Continue, “Abortion, like human slavery, is a moral issue that has become politicized. But that doesn’t remove our burden to bring biblical truth to this moral matter. There are many biblical passages commanding us to help those in need. What would it mean to follow these Scriptures when innocent people are being purposefully killed with the blessing of the law?”

This is an attack on people rather than their ideas (an ad hominem logical fallacy). Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the morality of abortion.

Say, “What if I introduced you to pro-life activists who are not mean? Would that change your mind?”

If they say, “Yes,”

tell them about Created Equal. Show them our videos.

If they say, “No,”

respond, “Then it seems the issue isn’t really whether pro-life activists are mean. There’s another reason you don’t oppose abortion. Can you explain?”

Say, “Not taking a position actually is taking a side. It means you support the status quo view, which is that it’s okay to kill humans as long as they’re younger than nine months in the womb. That’s not neutrality. It’s a pro-abortion position.”

Ask, “If we had lived in the era of chattel slavery in America and we were church leaders, would it be right to take a position of neutrality? Or should church leaders speak up about human rights abuses?”

CONTINUE