Only Two Questions?

Alan Shlemon has been one of my closest friends since the late 1990s, but after all these years, his answer surprised me. Late last year, our outreach team was about to sit down to dinner in his home, and I asked a version of this question: “What’s the minimum amount of training you think someone needs in order to have a successful conversation on a difficult topic?”

View fullsize

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason (right) interacts with a student at JFA’s “Stop and Think” outreach at UCLA in May 2016. Although we don’t know everything Alan was covering in this conversation, we do know for certain he was employing the two questions what and why and modeling the approach we discuss in this post.

Alan is a speaker at Stand to Reason (www.str.org), and like the trainers at Justice For All (JFA), he regularly equips Christians to talk about the most thorny and complicated topics in the culture. I expected Alan to say something like “four or five hours” since just one topic can bring up a myriad of facts, questions, and arguments, let alone all of the related topics people inevitably also raise.

Instead, Alan said he really only needed just a few minutes to teach people to use the Columbo Tactic. He was referring to asking questions that gather information and request reasons. (STR’s Greg Koukl named this tactic after the beloved, bumbling 1970’s detective who solved his crimes by asking questions.) That was it? All people need is to learn to ask a couple of questions?

I quickly realized, though, that Alan was simply reminding me of what I and other JFA trainers have been teaching for years: “Learn to ask two questions, and you can make an impact in any conversation on any topic with anyone anytime anywhere.” What two questions? The same ones to which Alan was referring: what and why. These questions help us gather information (What do you believe? What did you mean by that?) and ask people to give reasons for the claims they make (Why do you believe that? How did you come to that conclusion?). These two questions also “get us out of the hot seat and into the driver’s seat of the conversation,” as Greg Koukl has often said.

Now, I don’t mean you can ask these questions in any way and expect them to create productive dialogue. Obviously, we need to follow these questions up with “listening to understand.” We’ve also found that accompanying these questions with a desire to find common ground (“I agree… I think you’re making a good point”) and an attitude of humility (“I know I’m mistaken about some things, and you might have insight that will shed light on which of my beliefs are false”) helps the two questions make their impact. In this way you can also create a context in which the person is more likely to be open to a third type of question that challenges his or her beliefs.

So, if you’re afraid to engage friends or family in conversation about difficult topics, I suggest you focus on developing your ability to ask these two questions, what and why. How? Start practicing. What’s great about these questions is that you don’t have to do the heavy lifting. You only have to figure out what words need to be clarified and what parts of the person’s view are unclear (ask some question that begins with “what did you mean…?”). Then once you have the person’s view clarified, you can think of her view like the roof of a house. What does a roof need in order to be a roof? Walls. So you then ask the person to build walls that support her roof (ask some question that begins with “why do you believe…?” or “how did you come to this conclusion?”).

You can even practice this approach and these questions on topics that don’t have to do with controversial issues; I’m referring to the conversations you have with the people closest to you that become tense and frequently devolve into hurt feelings. Instead of assuming you know what your spouse or child or friend meant, ask “what did you mean when you said…?” Instead of assuming you know how she would support her view, ask “what reasons for this view are persuasive to you?”

I’m confident you’ll find that you can create productive conversations you never thought possible. In fact, people frequently report to our team during our campus events things like, “This was the best conversation I’ve ever had.” Sure, members of the JFA team have a lot of experience, and I consider them experts. But even someone with no experience, a conversation beginner, can experience the same extraordinary results. You can start today to develop these skills. Just focus on asking these two questions!

Thank you for partnering with us as we help pro-life advocates and Christians get started changing hearts and minds with simple tools like these.

Note: This letter is the third in a series of letters on conversation skills we teach volunteers that help them get started having conversations and encourage them to stay active. See the previous letters in the series:

• “Be a Playmaker” (jfaweb.org/feb-2023)

• “Thinking about the Unborn for the First Time” (jfaweb.org/may-2023)

Secular Pro-Life Resources

It’s common for pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike to assume the pro-life position is inherently religious.

For pro-life advocates, we encourage them to consider beginning conversations with secular arguments in order to not put unnecessary stumbling blocks in someone’s way. We also ask pro-life advocates to consider that even if they hold religious reasons for their position, they can also hold non-religious, publicly-accessible reasons for their position that can persuade the masses in a pluralistic society such as ours in 21st century US. See, for example, Rebecca Hotovy’s “#Mindblown” conversation with Brian. Brian began with the belief that he could not support a law against abortion because his reason for his pro-life view was religious. He believed it was wrong to put his religious view into law. Rebecca Hotovy deftly showed him that he also held his position for a reason that didn’t rely on explicitly religious support: it’s wrong and should be illegal to harm someone else.

For pro-choice advocates, we encourage them to consider the fact that there are many pro-life advocates who are agnostics or atheists. The gutsy new presidential candidate Terrisa Bukovinac is one high-profile example. The apologists at Secular Pro-Life are examples as well. Many of the folks at Libertarians for Life are also non-religious.

For pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike, we recommend the following resources from these atheistic and agnostic pro-life advocates. While we don’t agree with the atheism or agnosticism of the authors of these resources, they nonetheless contain many good arguments and truth claims, and they can help religious pro-life advocates frame their arguments in ways that are more persuasive to the average non-religious person. This is right in line with our emphasis on finding common ground when possible.

• “Later Abortion”: Very helpful microsite filled with links and research curated by Secular Pro-Life to show that “There is no quantifiable data to support the idea that all or even most later abortions are medically necessary.” It includes a collection of data on the reasons women opt for later abortion. This helps us respond to claims that “no late-term abortion is elective.”

• “Embryonic Hearts”: This microsite demonstrates that the unborn has a primitive heartbeat from very early in development and describes the development of the heart from scientific textbooks.

• Resources from Secular Pro-Life Related to the Question of Rape

• “I’m an Emergency Physician. Pro-Life Laws Don’t Threaten My Patients.” One doctor’s perspective on abortion restrictions in Texas since Dobbs.

• Guardian article “What a pregnancy actually looks like” erases embryos

• Responding to 16 pro-choice claims about Dobbs, the pro-life movement, and abortion bans

• Why artificial wombs pose a challenge to pro-choice personhood arguments

• The pro-choice view survives on widespread ignorance of biology

Don't Follow the Leader

I hope that you had a wonderful Fourth of July celebration with your family!

This year, I went with a friend to watch fireworks. We had a lot of fun. When we got back to my car, I struggled a bit to figure out how to get out of the parking lot. There were tons of people and cars. Everything was a bit chaotic. All of the cars seemed to be going left, which seemed a little odd to me because I was sure there was no outlet in that direction. I am new to the area, and both my friend and I are directionally challenged, so we decided to just follow all of the other cars. Eventually we realized that there really wasn’t an outlet. Everyone had been going in the wrong direction. Finally, we got turned around and out of the parking lot. It is likely that one person thought there was an outlet and others just followed him. 

As I think about that experience, I am reminded of all the times throughout Scripture where Jesus refers to us as sheep. Sheep follow each other without really thinking. Human beings are much the same way. Whether it is something as silly as following a line of cars toward a non-existent exit, or something much more serious like following other’s belief systems about worldview questions, we are prone to follow without thinking.

I have a lot of sympathy for pro-choice people because I know that many of them are following the culture without questioning it. In fact, I am prone to the same mistake. If you think about it, this is actually encouraging because it means many pro-choice people are very persuadable. They are not pro-choice because they have thought about the issue and decided that being pro-choice makes the most sense. Instead, they are pro-choice because they are following the culture without stopping to question it. When we confront them with the truth, many of these people see their mistake and are willing to change their perspective.

The same is true of many non-Christians. They have not thought seriously about the claims of Christ. They have not taken time to study the various religions with an aim to discover the truth. Rather than thinking deeply about Christianity and then rejecting it, many people are simply going with the flow of our culture.

This is exciting. It means that our simple conversations can truly change people’s lives. When we engage people in conversations about abortion, worldviews, and the gospel, we may be helping them to think about these issues for the first time. They may not change their minds on the spot, but we have planted a seed that has the potential to one day bear fruit.

View fullsize

Earlier this month, the JFA team had the joy of training the students at Ellerslie Mission Society. I always love training at Ellerslie because I was first introduced to Justice For All there. It is fun to see everything come full-circle in this way.

Jack Changes His Mind...Three Times

Part 1: A Good Conversation Is a Mirror

One of my favorite conversations from my JFA work is my conversation with “Jack” from 2013. Recently I’ve been sharing it with audiences as an example of the kind of complete change of mind that can happen very quickly. I don’t mean to imply that most JFA conversations result in a conversion this dramatic, but the story does help us catch a glimpse of what is possible with any conversation. Let’s trust that God is working behind the scenes of every conversation, even if we don’t see results like this. -Steve Wagner, July 2021 Impact Report

It was a special treat. In many conversations, the person with whom I’m speaking doesn’t show a clear change of mind. I simply must trust God to work behind the scenes. In one conversation at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) in March 2013, though, I had the privilege of watching a young man I’ll call “Jack” change his mind...three times.

“Jack” (right) and Steve ponder pictures of human development and work to discover what explains our equal rights. (Photo by John Michener)

Jack had talked to someone at our outreach the previous day, so when I asked him where he drew the line on human rights, he was ready with an answer. “At eighteen weeks,” he said. Through a few minutes of clarifying questions from me, he stated that he believed the unborn was a human being biologically, but that the basic right to life began when brain processing was such that the unborn could respond to sound.

He had another reason to draw the line at about eighteen weeks, though: viability. Again, I asked a few questions to clarify what he meant, and he confirmed that he meant that when the unborn could survive outside the womb, even if she required technology, she would have the basic right to life.

“Doesn’t progress in technology move the point of viability earlier and earlier?” I asked.

“That’s a really good point,” Jack pondered. He and I agreed human rights could not be determined by a criterion that could be moved from year to year by technological advances. The first change of mind.

I then raised a problem for Jack to solve. “If all of us walking around the campus deserve equal treatment, we must have something the same about us that demands that we be treated equally. But what is the same about us?”

He had raised the possibility that “brain processing” was the thing that made the unborn valuable at about eighteen weeks. I asked if he meant brain processing itself. When he said, “Yes,” I pointed out that brain processing is something that comes in degrees – we can have more or less of it. Since it’s not something we all have equally, it cannot ground equal rights. He saw the problem.

I gave him another option, though. If he framed his explanation for equal rights as “that we have brain processing at all” then it would be an all-or-nothing property that could potentially ground equal human rights. It was true that all of the adults whose rights we were discussing in the vicinity of the outreach at UTSA did have the property of “having brain processing at all,” and they had that property equally. If Jack was right that this adjusted criterion was the reason for basic rights, then that would account for the equal rights of adults, and it would account for the fact that infants also share those equal rights. In fact, the basic right to life would then extend into the womb to approximately the point he had picked, at eighteen weeks.

I pointed out, though, that this would present an additional problem: then many animals, such as dogs, would also have equal rights to the rest of us, because they also have the property of “having brain processing at all.” Jack made a predictable move at this point and added two additional criteria. “You don’t just have to have ‘brain processing at all’ to have equal rights. You also have to be viable and human.”

I asked him if he could give me an independent reason to believe that value should be based on these three things in combination. I was looking for an independent reason other than “It saves my view that the unborn should only be protected after eighteen weeks, and that whatever rights animals deserve, they shouldn’t be equal to humans.”

He saw the point of my question, and he quickly saw what philosophers would call the ad hoc nature of his argument. His only reason for adjusting his argument was to save it from the implications I drew from it.

I could see the wheels turning. My explanation for equal rights was also on the table – human nature. But the implications of that view were also clear: if human nature is the thing that we all share equally that demands that we be treated equally, then the unborn should be treated equally, too, because the unborn has that same human nature.

“Okay, you’ve convinced me,” he said. “I agree that abortion should only be legal if the mother’s life is in danger.” A second change of mind.

Unlike many students I talk to, who feel they have to put on confident airs or defend their arguments at all costs, Jack clearly wanted something more than to impress me. He wanted to understand truth. He got the truth, and I ended up impressed with him anyway – especially with his humble spirit.

I hadn’t taken a posture of trying to change Jack’s mind. Our conversation functioned more like a mirror, reflecting back to Jack what I heard him telling me. He responded like the happy young chap about to make a business proposal who barely remembers to check the mirror and finds a spot of mustard left unceremoniously on his chin by his lunchtime liverwurst. No one wants to be oblivious to his real state of affairs. There were two factors, though, that especially caused my mirror to be helpful to Jack:

• Without the skills of clear thinking, the mirror would have failed to reflect certain portions of the image properly. Because I knew the questions to ask, the exact image emerged for Jack. Mastering clear thinking skills takes work, but you can learn to create a helpful reflection for someone like Jack. To take practical steps to begin developing these skills, see www.jfaweb.org/clear-thinking.

• The image would have become blurry or distorted like that of a carnival mirror had I not had an attitude of humility and goodwill. If I had needed to show Jack my intellectual prowess, he might have felt the need to take me down a peg or two. If I had belittled his views or mocked them, it would have made it harder for him to take the truth seriously. He might have felt the need to defend turf, and he would have been distracted from the truth altogether.

Throughout our conversation, I brought an attitude of partnering to find truth together. I considered his arguments as if they might be true. Because he was worth my time, his arguments were worth my best efforts to evaluate them with him. He looked in the mirror that our conversation was presenting to him, saw his views for what they were, and decided to make a change right then.

I sensed that our work was not finished, though, because Jack and I had not yet confronted the two thorniest aspects of the topic, especially when combined as an argument for legal abortion: bodily rights and rape. Instead of assuming the conversation had been sufficient as a mirror, I decided to turn it into a window. That’s when Jack had his third moment of truth. I’ll explain in Part 2 below.

- Steve Wagner, for the JFA Team

Note: Steve’s conversation with “Jack” took place in March 2013. This report was originally published later that year. Special thanks to John Michener of Oklahomans United for Life for his editing on this piece in 2013. This post has been updated in minor ways and can be shared via www.jfaweb.org/mirror-and-window.

---

Part 2: A Good Conversation Is a Window

In this report, you’ll see the conclusion of my conversation with Jack from 2013, and you’ll see him change his mind a third time. You’ll see how I gave him a window for viewing the most compelling arguments for abortion, along with compelling responses to them. I hope reading this conversation will not only inspire you to look deeper into the ideas, but that it will also help you see that you can create conversations which compel abortion-choice advocates to change their minds. - Steve Wagner, August 2021 Impact Report

In Part I above, I described how “Jack” in San Antonio abandoned his belief that the unborn only become valuable at viability and then later said I had convinced him that abortion should not be legal except in the case of a threat to the mother’s life.

“Jack” (above, right) initially clarified that he believed abortion should generally be legal. 90 minutes later he said, “Heck” and wrote on the Free Speech Board (below). He told me that he now thought abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape.

These two changes of mind were encouraging, but I sensed that our work was not finished. We hadn’t yet discussed arguments claiming that even if the unborn is a human being, the woman’s right to her body justifies abortion. I knew that if we didn’t address these bodily rights arguments, especially compelling in the case of rape, Jack might be shaken when he encountered them.

In the first part of the conversation, Jack had been making the claims, and I had been functioning as a mirror to help him assess his own views about abortion. Now I set out to function more like a window, showing Jack other arguments out there that he hadn’t considered yet.

I began by explaining what former JFA intern Trent Horn called the “Sovereign Zone” view: A woman can do anything she wants with anything in her body, and because the unborn is inside her body, the woman can kill the unborn. I pointed out that if a woman has the right to do anything with anything that is inside her body, then many things would be justified legally, including intentionally deforming the unborn by taking thalidomide and intentionally torturing the unborn late in the pregnancy through dismemberment abortion. (See “Autumn in the Sovereign Zone” at www.jfaweb.org/body for more on this approach.)

Seeing the implications of the Sovereign Zone view clearly through this window, Jack and I agreed it had to be abandoned. I knew that there was a stronger version of the bodily rights argument that was not so easily dismantled, though, and I went on to tell Jack about it.

Sure, it’s obvious that a woman can’t do anything to anything that is inside her body. But can she be forced to allow the unborn to do something to her body – to use her body to sustain its life? Or does she have a right to refuse? As Trent Horn has pointed out, unlike the Sovereign Zone argument, which is based on a very controversial premise, this “Right to Refuse” argument is based on a very uncontroversial premise: Generally speaking, you can’t be forced to do something with your body you don’t want to do.

It’s not only pro-choice advocates who find this argument plausible. I find it plausible. If you find yourself hooked up to someone who needs your kidney to live, you can’t be forced to stay hooked up. How then can a government force a woman to stay hooked up to her unborn child? And worse, what if the woman didn’t consent to intimacy? Can a woman who is pregnant from rape be forced to continue to use her body to sustain the unborn’s life? As Jack and I pondered these questions together, I noted how compelling this line of reasoning is. Even if it holds only in the case of rape and therefore applies to no more than 1.5% of abortions in America, it’s troubling.

It’s important to note that throughout this conversation I emphasized genuine sympathy for those who have been raped. This is imperative in any conversation about rape and abortion, but especially when that conversation involves complicated intellectual arguments. We should never get so caught up in our ideas that we forget the people affected by them. This is not just true with the topic of rape, but also with any appeal to bodily rights. (Please see “Meeting the Relational Challenge” at www.jfaweb.org/body for more on this.)

I then shared two parables with Jack that indicate there’s something amiss with the Right to Refuse argument, even in the case of rape. I’ll share just a snapshot of one of them here, and you can see a full treatment of the approach I used with Jack in a paper we published online in April 2013: “De Facto Guardian and Abortion.” (You can find this paper, along with newer resources with alternative approaches at www.jfaweb.org/body.)

In the movie Up, Carl (inset image, white hair) sets his house free from the ground, flies thousands of feet in the air, and then hears a knock at the door. The young explorer Russell has stowed away on the porch and is about to fall off. Is Carl obligated to take him in? Should the law expect him to give Russell food and shelter? What if he has to use his body to pour water or cut bread for Russell? Does this change the obligation?

Jack agreed that Carl does have an obligation to use his body to support Russell’s life. He also agreed this should be a legal obligation. One explanation of this obligation is that Carl just happens to be, for whatever reason, the only person in the vicinity who can care for Russell. We called Carl a de facto guardian because it seems he has the same obligations as that of a parent or guardian, though temporarily.

The woman pregnant from rape is similarly situated to Carl. She didn’t ask to be in the situation where she would be the only person in the vicinity who could care for a child. But she is. If the de facto guardian principle holds, then, she has an obligation (and, as we argue, what should be a legal obligation) to give the child in her womb the food and shelter he needs. She has the obligation to care for the child even if she didn’t consent to that obligation, and even if she doesn’t feel like a parent. We, in turn, should surround her with support.

After writing this comment towards the end of our conversation, Jack told me that he now thought abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape.

After discussing this strongest version of the Right to Refuse argument and how it fared in light of our intuitions about parables like the Up story, Jack said, “Heck” and wrote on the Free Speech Board, “Life will force you into situations you don’t necessarily want but have to deal with nonetheless.” He then verbalized to me that abortion should not be legal, even early in the pregnancy and even in the case of rape.

I saw this third change as more significant than Jack’s previous changes of mind. Now I was satisfied that I had created a window so he could see clearly the very best arguments for legal abortion before rejecting them. Evidently I did a good job of presenting those arguments, because at one point Jack said I was making him start to waver and think abortion might be justified. As you can imagine, I created this window for Jack with some fear and trembling. Why risk someone wavering back toward the pro-choice position? Even worse, why risk someone becoming a more confident pro-choice advocate with better arguments?

There are two reasons my fears didn’t keep me from creating a window for Jack. First, truth is not fragile. It will shine through if we ask the right questions and apply our minds to the study of sound reasoning. Second, Jack is a human being who is intrinsically valuable. He’s not an opportunity to make a convert. He deserves my best efforts to create conversation that is both a mirror and a window.

- Steve Wagner, for the JFA Team

Note: Steve’s conversation with “Jack” took place in March 2013. This report was originally published later that year. Special thanks to John Michener of Oklahomans United for Life for his editing on this piece in 2013. This post has been updated in minor ways and can be shared via www.jfaweb.org/mirror-and-window.

Postscript

JFA’s “Stop and Think” Exhibit is reflected in the windows of a building at Colorado State University in 2016. In a way, JFA’s Exhibits also function as both a mirror and a window - reflecting back to people the reality of what their views entail and giving people insight into topics and ideas they may never have thought about. You can see all of JFA’s Exhibits at our Exhibits page.

Links for Live Action Activists

Today, I will be sharing my presentation, “Transforming Conversations with Common Ground,” at the Live Action Activist Training session in San Francisco (listed as “Common Ground Without Compromise” on the schedule). Thanks to JFA trainers Rebekah and Mary for sharing conversation stories during the presentation. This post contains links to things I mentioned in my talk, as well as additional resources to help you grow in the art of dialogue and finding common ground:

Take a Next Step

Stories

More Links for Connecting with JFA

More Stories and Resources

"I'll never know you. I never got a chance..."

The letter and rose, shown below as a part of JFA's Stop and Think Exhibit, were originally found on a JFA Poll Table at Colorado State University in 2004.  This panel was first displayed at Colorado State University in 2016 in approximately the same location where the note was originally left.

View fullsize

Photo by Katherine Clark

The letter reads:

“Dear Rilegh,
I will never know you
I never got a chance
But I love you so much
She was never going to tell me about you
She was going to pretend you never existed
When she told me
I was truly speechless
Iv never cryed myself to sleep before
But for the past 2 weeks
It’s the only way I’m able to sleep
Theres this void in my life now
a bottomless hurt
that I’ll never know you
you, my first child
I’ll never see you grow
I can’t bring you back
I don’t even know where you are
So I gave you a home
You’ll be with me forever
I love you so much
Your Father
Rest in Peace
”

Many women and men (such as the writer of this letter) deal with grief following an experience with abortion.  No matter where you currently stand on the moral question of abortion, consider these questions for a few moments:

• How do you feel when you read this letter? Can you empathize with the writer's experience?

• Do you know anyone who has had an experience with abortion? Have you ever asked if he/she would like to talk about it?

• How do you think that the current US laws and social norms related to abortion affect people struggling with grief after abortion?

• Do you believe that a father's wishes should have more weight than they currently do in an abortion decision? Why or why not?

• The writer intended this letter for his child, but states that the mother "was going to pretend [the child] never existed." Do you believe this father really had a child? Why or why not?

• When in development does the unborn deserve legal protection?

Share your thoughts on any of these questions in the comments section below, at our @7conversations Twitter page, or at JFA’s Instagram page in the comments section of the related post

(See also JFA's "Healing after Abortion" page for more resources for helping friends with abortion in their past.)

Prepare for Conversations with "The Power of Common Ground"

In his newsletter for September (“The Power of Common Ground”), Jeremy Gorr shares a great model of using common ground in a real conversation. You can use his letter to equip yourself with questions that will help you find common ground with others regarding abortion. He also discusses an approach to finding genuine common ground that avoids compromising one’s beliefs. In a footnote, Jeremy mentions JFA Director Steve Wagner’s book, Common Ground Without Compromise, which you can get for free at www.commongroundbook.com. That book features 25 questions you can use to begin a conversation with agreement instead of hostility.

Is Every Child a Work of Art?

"Every Child is a Work of Art" t-shirt design, created by Tori Higa and available through Abort73.com

We really like this shirt design. Here are a few questions it brings to our minds.

What do you think?

• Do you think every human being is a work of art?

• Can optimism like this provide some common ground which can help with the discussion of solutions for unintended pregnancy?

• If you think every human being is a work of art, how does that inform your position on when human rights begin?

• Do these questions affect your position on abortion?

• Is it helpful to use / allude to artwork in order to create dialogue about abortion, or does it seem manipulative to you?

About the T-Shirt that Inspired this Post:

The picture above is a t-shirt design made available through Abort73, and created by artist Tori Higa.  The drawing of a little girl alludes to Frida Kahlo, an unexpected source of inspiration for a pro-life message like the one written directly underneath it.  Michael Spielman, the founder and director of Abort73.com explains: 

In referencing Kahlo's likeness on behalf of a politically incorrect cause, my hope is to continue her legacy of challenging perceptions and turning stereotypes on their head. You may look at our new design and see nothing but a cute little girl; I see an opportunity for dialogue and introspection—with a cautiously optimistic nod to the future. 

To read more about the purpose and origin of the design, see Michael Spielman's article, "Frida Kahlo and the Art of Abortion."

Justice For All was inspired by a similar concept when creating "The Art of Life", an open air exhibit which made its first appearances at Colorado State University (CSU) and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2016. (See images below, or read about all the panels by clicking here.)  Responses to JFA's new exhibit have spanned a wide range, from support and excitement to disgust and anger.

What do you think (Part 2)?  

• Is it helpful to use / allude to famous artwork in order to create dialogue about abortion, or does it seem manipulative to you?

• What other works of art have influenced you when thinking about the meaning and value of life?

• If human beings are a work of art, do you think that means there is an “artist”?

Video: "Why Equal Rights?" (Outreach Clip)

Watch Rebecca Hotovy talk with a student at Colorado State University about the foundation for our equal rights.

What do you think of Rebecca’s reasoning?

Watch Rebecca Hotovy (Haschke) talk with a student at Colorado State University about the foundation for our equal rights. --- Read Outreach Stories: www.jfaweb.org/stories Ask About an Internship: www.jfaweb.org/internships Explore JFA's Guide for Pro-Life Students: www.jfaweb.org/students/ccc Video by: Genesis Media (www.genesismediasolutions.com)

Share this post to start a conversation!

Click here for more dialogue examples involving the Equal Rights Argument.

Damien Hirst Sculptures Back on Display in Doha

https://t.co/6VTkjrp94u Whatever your views on human development and abortion, can we all agree these amazing pictures show sculptures that are an amazing human feat illuminating an amazing human journey? (Damien Hirst's "The Miraculous Journey" was just re-unveiled last month.)

— JFA Conversations (@7conversations) December 20, 2018

Share this post to start a conversation!

For more information about the controversy surrounding the sculptures, see:

• Damien hirst delivers controversy with giant uterus sculptures outside Qatar hospital (The Guardian, Nov. 18, 2018)

• PHOTOS: Damien Hirst’s “Miraculous Journey” unveiled at Sidra (Doha News, Oct. 7, 2013)

One Tiny Free Speech Board Comment

This free speech board was full of responses to our Stop and Think Exhibit Outreach at Colorado State University in April 2017.  But wait...

View fullsize

...Hiding in the upper left-hand corner, we found the following very tiny gem: 

"We can't have a real, productive conversation about this until we acknowlidge that most pro-choice people love children and most pro-life people love women.  What we disagree on is definitions.  Virtually no one thinks its okay to murder babies, but if a fetus is not defined as a baby or an individual then Pro-life people seem heartless.  Virtually no one thinks it's okay to force a woman to do something with/to her body against her will, but if a fetus is not defined as part of a woman's body, but a person, pro-choice people seem heartless. 

"Now let's talk!  Recognizing that you and I can disagree about this definition + both be loving people!  Let's talk science!"

- Anonymous, Colorado State University, April 2017 (spelling and punctuation preserved)

What do you think of this person's "way forward"? 

Our favorite line here is, "Now let's talk."  What do you think?  We want to listen.  Share your opinion in the comments box below, or share your opinion at our 7conversations Twitter page. 

---

See more photos from this outreach in JFA's April 2017 - CSU gallery.

Identifying with her uncertain future

View fullsize

"Uncertain future" from JFA's Art of Life Exhibit.

This panel from JFA's Art of Life Exhibit features "La ofrenda" ("The offering") by Mexican painter Saturnino Herrán (1913).  It may not be possible to know exactly what is pictured here, but since the marigold is a flower frequently associated with death in some Latin American and Hispanic cultures, this may be a funeral procession.  We can imagine that the woman and children pictured may be grappling with an uncertain future after the death of a husband and father.

Let's consider the woman who finds herself pregnant unexpectedly.  Many times she is facing a very uncertain future.  Will I be able to care for this baby?  What will happen to my prospects for a career or even my prospects to be able to eat and provide for myself if I give birth to a baby?  Will I be able to handle the pains of labor?  Will I be able to find a loving adoptive couple to care for this baby if I am not able?  Will I lose my scholarship and then be forced to work in menial jobs for the rest of my life because I had to abandon my education?  Will I be dependent on others instead of being able to care for myself?  Will my friends abandon me?  Will the father of this baby stick around or will he just move on because I'm no longer desirable to him?

Unless we've been in a situation of unplanned pregnancy, it may be difficult for us to identify with these sorts of feelings that a woman faces when she finds herself pregnant unexpectedly.  But we must try to identify with her and understand how difficult it is from her perspective to think about carrying the child to term and giving birth.  Do you agree that it is helpful to give attention to these fears a woman has when she faces the uncertain future a pregnancy presents to her?  How should this change the way in which we discuss abortion?  Do you agree with the panel above that makes the claim that facing an uncertain future is better than killing a child by abortion? 

(For more information about the painting, including a link to a high resolution image of the painting, see JFA's Art of Life Exhibit page.)

MIA : What do you think?

View fullsize

The images in this post are from one mysterious panel of Justice For All's Stop and Think Exhibit.  The female symbol is juxtaposed with the familiar acronym for missing in action, MIA, in pink.  Then the panel asks:

According to The Lancet, millions upon millions of girls around the world are missing due to sex-selective abortion and infanticide.  Are you saddened by this or do you find yourself indifferent?  Is this phenomenon an expression of women’s rights or a violation of women’s rights? 

What do you think?  Why?

Note: For more information about the claims made on this panel, see the Stop and Think Exhibit page.

View fullsize

Note: This is one of a series of posts encouraging dialogue on abortion.  Whatever your perspective on abortion, please note that Justice For All promotes respect for people with differing views and condemns all abortion-related violence.  Please feel free to share this post on social media, and feel free to comment below.

Women's March - Fertile Ground for Dialogue on Abortion

A panel on JFA's new "Stop and Think" Exhibit. The text reads: "Embrace"..."the Future of Feminism."

"Women's Rights are Human Rights, and Human Rights are Women's Rights."  This is the motto for which millions gathered in solidarity, this past Saturday, at Women’s March events around the globe.  However, one particular demographic that is passionate about that message of equality was officially ostracized from the events: pro-life advocates. 

The official Unity Principles of the Women’s March on Washington (and affiliated “sister marches”) includes this statement:  

We believe in Reproductive Freedom… This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion…for all people, regardless of income, location or education.[1]

In the days leading up to the march, many pro-life women spoke out about a contradiction within the principles of the Women’s March on Washington.  Rebecca Weiss, who calls herself a “pro-life feminist,” wrote in her Jan. 16 Patheos blog post:

I would like to say this to my pro-choice sisters:
We who are pro-life can not be excluded from feminism simply because we believe that the life of the unborn human is worthy of protection. We agree with you that women are driven to abortion because of social injustices, that these social injustices need to be eradicated, that women do deserve to have access to health care and bodily autonomy, that we need to work hard to oppose rape culture, and that women ought to have access to a variety of choices. We differ only on the question of when the life of [a] developing human must be protected from violence. It should be appreciated that, when we draw a circle around “which lives deserve protection” – we are the ones who are drawing the widest, most generous circle. [emphasis added]

JFA Trainer Rebecca Haschke talks to a UCLA student (May 2016) in front of one JFA poll table asking: "Can feminists be pro-choice?" The poll question's unexpected phrasing prompts many conversations about human equality and the pro-life position.

In this statement, Rebecca did a great job of modeling one of the Three Essential Skills we teach at every JFA training event–finding common ground.  In fact, she focused on one of the central pieces of common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates – the belief that all humans, male and female, should be treated equally.  From there, she could make her case for the protection of the unborn based on the same foundation: their common humanity.  Many pro-choice advocates have never seen the pro-life worldview in this light, as the position most concerned with the inclusion of vulnerable.

Justice for All trains pro-life advocates to share this message of equality using what we call “The Equal Rights Argument.”  With the recent buzz surrounding the Women’s March on Washington, you have a powerful opportunity to create heart-changing dialogue about abortion.  We're here to help you get started.

Resources:  Creating Dialogue on Equal Rights

• Read JFA's Equal Rights Argument Newsletter Collection (conversation stories of the Equal Rights argument in action).

• Start using JFA's Learn at Home Program guide.

• Register for a JFA workshop or seminar in your area.

• Don’t see an event near you? Invite us to train your community.

Can Ten Seconds Change Minds?

It all started at 1:40 AM at a stoplight on Pacific Coast Highway in Hermosa Beach, California.  My July newsletter tells what happened there and how one good thing that came of it was a sound bite that is still making an impact on how people think about abortion 13 years later.  The short letter, Ten Seconds Can Change Minds, includes stories of real conversations from JFA trainers Jeremy Gorr and CK Wisner.

Here are a few additional notes on the topic of the letter:

1. See more of the conversation with the women at the stoplight in an excerpt from my original write-up on the incident (a one-page reduction of my August 2002 newsletter): Got Ten Seconds?
2. Admittedly, there are some limitations to the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist."  Even though it has a logical structure similar to a syllogism, it shouldn't be expressed by pro-lifers as an air-tight argument to which no responses can be made.  I use the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" instead in the same way a soccer team uses a kick-off.  The sound bite just gets things started.  It helps me to put something on the table and then shut my mouth to allow the other person to talk, to respond, to think with me.  In this sense, it is purposefully incomplete.  It invites questions.  So, I suggest to pro-life advocates to take care in the amount of weight they give to these three sentences, expressed on their own, without clarification.  In other words, don't toss the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" out there as if just in saying these three sentences, it should silence all debate.  No, on the contrary, it is meant simply to get productive dialogue started.  One of the main limitations is the fact that these three sentences only implicitly make reference to the fact that the unborn is a whole organism.  In my view, this is an essential clarification pro-life advocates must make in their conversations about the unborn.  So, the unborn is not just living (like any cells or tissue of any species) and is not just human (like HeLa cells) but it is a special sort of living, human tissue that is integrated and organized in a specific way - the same way that you and I are integrated and organized, as a whole organism.
3. To illustrate the above point, note, for example, the way in which PZ Meyers misunderstood the intended purpose in using a version of the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" by Kristan Hawkins, the President of SFLA; note also the detailed critique of the PZ Meyers piece by Clinton Wilcox.
4. Exercise 3 in JFA's Interactive Guide teaches you to use the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" in conversation.  You can see how I would clarify the "organism" point (see Note #1 above) in the "Imitate" section of Exercise 3.  Get the Interactive Guide here.
5. If you’ve enrolled in our “Learn at Home” program by completing the exercises at www.jfaweb.org/learn-at-home, the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" should look familiar to you.  It comprises the first ten seconds of the one-minute sound bite featured in Step 2.
6. The 10-Second Pro-Life Apologist has been referenced and utilized by many pro-life advocates and organizations, including SFLA, Trent Horn, Amy Hall, Brett Kunkle, and Josh Brahm.
7. Has the "10-Second Pro-Life Apologist" helped you in your conversations about abortion?  Share your story in the comments below.

Note: This post originally appeared at "Human Beings Matter More," the personal blog of Steve Wagner, JFA's Executive Director.