At JFA, we love giving pro-life advocates easy-to remember tools for keeping conversations about abortion focused and gracious. One of our favorites is “trotting out a toddler” (Scott Klusendorf, Life Training Institute).
Abortion is a very emotionally and psychologically complex issue for many people. But morally? It’s very simple: a lot of the noise surrounding abortion really boils down to just one question: “What is the unborn?”
This is because if abortion does not kill a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. But if it does kill a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.
I have found it very helpful in conversations to take Scott’s advice and trot out a toddler to show that this is the case.
There are four basic steps to trotting out a toddler:
1. Agree - Find areas of genuine agreement, without compromising your position.
2. Apply - Use their argument for abortion to justify killing a hypothetical two-year-old child.
3. Ask Why - When they reject this justification for killing a born child, ask them why. With few exceptions, they will respond that the argument doesn’t justify killing a born child, because the born child is a human being.
4. Ah! - The light bulb moment. (note: this is not an “A-ha! Gotcha!” moment - that would be prideful) Example: “Ah! Then the issue isn’t poverty, but ‘what is the unborn’, right? If the unborn are human beings, then shouldn’t we protect them like we do two-year olds?”
In the Dialogue box [below], you’ll read how this tool helped Raymond at Pasadena City College gain some important clarification about abortion last May when we went to his campus.
Note also how finding common ground with Raymond changed this potentially confrontational situation into a mutually respectful dialogue.
Raymond skateboarded up to the Exhibit and joined the conversation I was having with his two friends. Realizing I’m pro-life, he became defensive and condescending. But “trotting out the toddler” helped win him over.
Raymond (R): Women should have the right to choose to do with their own bodies what they want to! Especially women who are poor and can’t afford to raise kids - they need the right to abort.
Catherine (C): I appreciate your concern for women’s rights and for poor women.
At this, Raymond’s defenses came down a bit and he sat down with us.
C: But aren’t some choices wrong? Being a woman doesn’t gives me the right to kill a child if I can’t afford him, does it?
R: But if you guys don’t even care about born kids who are abused or living in poverty, then it’s inconsistent for you to care so much about unborn children!
C: Oh, absolutely!
R: Wait, what?
C: You’re right - if we didn’t care about born children who suffer, and only cared about unborn kids, that would be hypocritical. I agree!
R: Oh, okay. So then, why are you out here doing this?
C: Well, it’s because we do care about born children. The people on our team support and care for born children in lots of different ways. But wouldn’t it be inconsistent for us to advocate for the rights of born children, while ignoring the plight of unborn children?
R: Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I’ll give you that.
C: So, we agree on preventing children from being in poverty - that’s not the issue. The question is: does abortion prevent a child from living in poverty, or does it kill a child currently living in poverty - in his mothers’ womb? What is the unborn?