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)

Love One Another

Outreach at UT Austin, November 2023

One morning at Colorado State University, a student I will call “Heather” approached our poll table. Her demeanor was cold, and she matter-of-factly blurted out, “I believe abortion should be legal because many women will die in childbirth. Abortion should be legal for any reason.”

This conversation could definitely be challenging, I thought to myself.

Ellerslie Discipleship Training in Colorado, September 2023

I realized it was important for me to understand what was motivating Heather’s passion, so I began asking her questions. Heather shared with me that she had a rough childhood. Her mom, grandma, and several aunts were single mothers. She had watched them struggle as they tried to make it alone. I spent time acknowledging how hard that must have been.

 As the conversation progressed, I was able to walk through many of the pro-life arguments, and she seemed receptive.

After having a serious discussion about abortion, I began to inquire about her personal life. She was from a different state and had not made many friends at college. I could tell she was lonely and appreciated the opportunity to talk to someone.

At one point, the conversation shifted to spiritual matters. I had the opportunity to share the hope of the gospel with her, and we talked about why we need a Savior. She was quite open to discussing her beliefs with me. I asked Heather if she had a Bible. She told me that she did, but she had not brought it with her to college. I gave her the Gospel of John, which she gladly received.

Throughout the course of the conversation, Heather began to lighten up. At one point we both were laughing as she showed me pictures of her pets and shared stories from her science classes.

By the end of the conversation, I felt like I was talking to a different person. Her whole attitude had changed, and she seemed to be enjoying our time together. Before Heather left, she said, “Thank you so much for having this conversation. This was very meaningful!”

As I reflected on this interaction, I was reminded how important it is to show people that we care about them and to take an interest in their lives. Although Heather did not completely change her mind during our conversation, I am confident that she is more open to discussing pro-life issues. The first step in being able to reach someone is to show them we care. When we begin there, we end up having great opportunities to make a difference in their lives.

"Hey You! You're a Gender Traitor!"

In a conversation at Cal State San Marcos in October

I was in the middle of a conversation at Texas State University awhile ago, and a woman singled me out and yelled, “Hey you! You’re a gender traitor!” She proceeded to swear at me as she walked by. While this wasn’t a pleasant experience, when it came to mind recently I thought of Proverbs 20:5 which says, “The purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.”

Sometimes our lives intersect with other people at times when they are deeply suffering and struggling. When we bring up difficult topics they may react in very negative ways. I’m not saying that’s what was going on with this woman. I didn’t get to talk to her, so I don’t know. There are some people who just want to deride and attack those with whom they disagree, and it’s not a great use of our time to try to engage them. But that is not the norm. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt in these situations. We all have bad moments, and being on the receiving end of someone else’s bad moment gives us an opportunity to extend God’s grace to them.

I was at the University of Northern Colorado in September, and I asked a woman who was signing our poll if she wanted to share her thoughts about abortion. She put the pen down, looked at me, and in some colorful language basically said she didn’t care what other people thought so she would be happy to talk. I remember hoping the interaction would end quickly because I assumed it wasn’t going to go well. But I was wrong. It ended up being my best conversation that week, and I got to tell her about Jesus!

Proverbs 19:11 tells us that it is our “glory to overlook an offense.” I have found that if I don’t react to mean or dismissive comments, and I genuinely try to understand the people in front of me, I have a better chance to get to know them, their story, and why they believe what they do. Oftentimes this gives me the opportunity to challenge their false beliefs more effectively and point them to the truth.

Give people second chances. Third chances. Even fourth chances. Don’t give up on them too quickly. What is going on inside of people is like that deep well we read about in Proverbs 20:5. We are not going to get to the bottom quickly. Many people are angry, hurt, confused, and lost. That may make for some rough beginnings to our conversations, but that’s okay.

I am entering my fifth year with Justice For All, and I’m so thankful for your financial support and prayers that make my work possible. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis says, “If there were no help from Christ, there would be no help from other human beings.” God works through you and me to help the people He puts in my path, whether I’m talking to students on campus, sidewalk counseling at the abortion clinic, teaching at our workshops, or meeting with local ministry leaders to plan events. I’m grateful for all of the opportunities I have to help others as they wrestle with questions surrounding why human beings, born and unborn, should be protected and loved. Thank you for investing in me. I couldn’t do this without you.

Is Abortion just a Choice?

After our team finished setting up at Colorado State University for the day, I walked over to our poll table which asked the question, “Should Abortion Remain Legal?”

A young man I’ll call “David” walked over and signed the yes side. After I greeted him, I began to ask him about his beliefs. He believed the unborn is human, and he did not like abortion. Nevertheless, he felt that abortion should be legal because he did not want the government controlling what we can and cannot do. Our conversation went something like this:

Outreach at Palomar College in California October 2023

Andrea: I agree with you that choice is important. Obviously, we live in America where we have many freedoms. It is important to be able to make choices as long as these choices do not harm other human beings.

David: Yeah, I get that.

Andrea: We probably agree that murder, rape, and child abuse is wrong and should not be legal, right?

David: Yes.

Andrea: We have laws in place against those actions to protect human beings from harm. For example, it is illegal for someone to come to this campus and start shooting because that “choice” would harm other human beings. It is the same with the abortion issue. Since the unborn is a living human being, abortion is a choice that takes the life of an innocent human being.

David: Wow! I have never thought about it that way. That makes sense.

Andrea: Another way to think about it is to imagine that we have two buckets. One bucket is full of choices like your favorite ice cream flavor, what degree you want to get, your favorite sport, and so forth. These would be personal preferences. I think we agree that we should have the freedom to make those choices. The other bucket is full of choices that harm another human being, like murder, rape, and child abuse. Which bucket would you say abortion belongs in? (Read more about how my colleague Tammy Cook came up with this two-bucket analogy at www.jfaweb.org/two-buckets)

David: Oh…I would have to say that abortion belongs in the bucket of choices that harm another human being!

I often talk to people like David who believe the unborn is a living human being and believe abortion is wrong, but also think it should be legal because they feel it is merely a personal preference. It is helpful to point out why abortion should be illegal. Since the unborn is a living human being, elective abortion kills an innocent child. Therefore, elective abortion should not be legal.

As we enter the Thanksgiving and Christmas season, I want to thank you for all your prayers and support. As I reflect back on all God has done this year, I am in awe. It has been incredible to see Him at work. It is people like you who make it possible for me to have these conversations and to help JFA behind the scenes as we work to train many Christians to do the same! If you are not part of my support team, please prayerfully consider joining by giving an end-of-year gift or a monthly pledge.

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

Dinner and a Dialogue

At Justice For All, we are passionate about creating a space for healthy dialogue about divisive issues. While most of our conversations are centered around abortion, our training skills are applicable to any situation where disagreement exists.

After losing some friends over political disagreements, Ted Wetzler, an Ohio resident, started an organization called "Dinner and a Fight," with the word "fight" crossed out and replaced with "dialogue." He brings people together for a meal with all different viewpoints and helps foster good communication and understanding. His organization is worth checking out!

To learn skills for having productive dialogue about abortion, and by extension, any controversial issue, take our online Love3 workshops.

Thinking about the Unborn Child for the First Time

Stacey walked up to our outreach signs looking curious. We were standing on a busy walkway at Palomar College (CA) in December. I asked a few questions about her thoughts on abortion, and she clarified that she thought abortion should be legal until birth. Here’s my recollection of the rest of the conversation:

Steve: Do you believe abortion should be legal because you believe a woman has a right to her body?

Stacey: Yes. A woman’s right to her body is really important to me.

Steve: I agree that a woman has a right to her body, generally speaking, and I agree that’s really important. Women’s bodily rights have been trampled on and continue to be trampled on throughout the world with practices like slavery, rape, and domestic violence. I think those things are horrific and wrong.

View fullsize

Palomar College Outreach in December 2022: Steve (center, black shirt) and other JFA staff members interact with students.

Stacey: I agree.

Steve: Do you agree with me that a woman’s bodily rights are not simply created or determined by the state? Instead, they’re fundamental. They’re like other human rights. If the state didn’t protect those rights, the state would be wrong.

Stacey: Yes, that’s true.

View fullsize

Pages 4-5 of JFA’s Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.

Steve: I have some pictures over here that might be helpful to our conversation. [I showed her the signs that show pages four and five of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure.] Look at this young woman pictured here. Can we agree that she has bodily rights that the state should respect?

Stacey: I agree with that.

View fullsize

JFA’s setup at the National Mall on April 26-27 included the signs Steve referred to in his conversation with Stacey.

Steve: Now, what about this toddler? I assume we would agree he shouldn’t be killed. Can we agree he has bodily rights that are fundamental?

Stacey: Yes.

Steve: So the woman and the toddler have the same bodily rights. And those rights are fundamental, so the situation would have to reach a really high bar to justify limiting something so important as a person’s bodily rights. Perhaps the only legitimate way the state could limit those rights is if these people were using their bodies to take away someone else’s bodily rights.

Stacey: That’s a good point.

Steve: Does it make sense to you that if their rights are fundamental, they had them from the moment they began to exist? When did this toddler begin to exist?

Stacey: That makes sense, but I guess I’m not sure. What do you think?

Steve: Well, from fertilization [pointing at image on sign], when the sperm and the egg came together, both ceased to exist, and a new organism came into existence. All that’s been added from then until the toddler stage is food. If we have something as important as fundamental human rights now, I don’t think we could gain those rights by eating. So, I think the woman and the toddler began to exist at fertilization, and that’s also when they gained their fundamental right to their bodies. But that would mean that the embryo has a fundamental right to his body just like the toddler and the woman.

Our conversation continued for ten minutes or so. (Indeed, Stacey contributed much more detailed responses than what my memory has allowed me to include here.) We discussed how the embryo is very different from us (in looks and functions) but is also the same kind of being that we are—a being with the same human nature we have. If this is true, the woman’s fundamental right to her body would not include the right to abortion, because then abortion would be killing a human being with the same bodily rights.

As Stacey got ready to move on from the conversation, she eagerly accepted a copy of the Invitation to Dialogue Brochure that included the same pictures we had been discussing. What she said in parting really surprised me:

Stacey: I never thought about the fetus as a separate person—that it has its own rights we would be taking away. I’ll have to think about that!

At the beginning of this conversation, Stacey sounded completely pro-choice, and frankly, I think I suspected she wouldn’t have much interest in an alternative opinion. She showed the exact opposite throughout our conversation. It’s a lesson I’ve learned again and again: Don’t make assumptions from appearances.

As I found common ground with Stacey repeatedly about bodily rights, showing relational sensitivity to the emotionally heavy topic of what a woman can do with her body, I think she became open to my perspective about the unborn child. That’s the sequence we teach any chance we can: Be relational…then be intellectual. That approach helped Stacey to consider the possibility there was a whole other person involved in the abortion question, and she showed genuine interest in thinking further about that.

---

Note: This letter is the second 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 “Be a Playmaker” (Feb. 2023) for the first in the series. (March 2024 Update: The third letter in the series, “Only Two Questions?” has just been published. Read it here.)

Watch Kristina Massa present to 2000 people at SFLA's National Pro-Life Summit 2023

We are very proud of Kristina Massa, who presented to 2000 people at the National Pro-Life Summit on January 21. Kristina did a beautiful job helping the audience see some of the essentials of good dialogue through stories of her conversations on campus. I had the privilege of joining her on the platform to model good dialogue for the audience. You can watch the presentation above or click this link for SFLA’s video post.

Three Tips for Helping Volunteers Stay Active for the Long-Term

1. Clarify What and Why.

2. Keep the Goal in View, but Be Satisfied to Do Your Part.

3. Be Relational, then Be Intellectual.

More Helpful Links:

Does the Bible Say Anything about Abortion?

Years ago, I received this email from a friend*:

“My secretary is a very wonderful Christian sister. Her daughter is 37 and pregnant and she is considering having an abortion. Unfortunately her daughter talked with an uninformed person who said the Bible doesn't address the topic of abortion.” [Identifying details have been removed.]

I fired off the following response without much editing and found out the next day that this simple Biblical defense against abortion, along with accurate pictures of abortion and the mother’s persistent expression of concern, persuaded the 37 year-old not to abort her child.

---

The Bible does address abortion as directly as it addresses the killing of toddlers. Neither is specifically mentioned, but it is clear from the following passages that human beings are made with a special dignity as part of their nature.

Gen. 1:26-28 *

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (v. 27) God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen. 9:6-7

‘Whoever sheds man's blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man.

‘As for you, be fruitful and multiply;

Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.’ ”

James 3:8-10

“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.”

And if our dignity is part of our nature, we have that dignity from the moment we begin to exist. And because it is clear scientifically that there is no essential change in the human organism from conception to natural death, the unborn must also have the same dignity we ourselves have.

So, Scripture does directly deal with abortion in the sense that abortion kills an innocent human being (if anyone questions whether abortion kills, they should consult abortion photos at www.abort73.com) and killing an innocent human being is seriously wrong no matter the stage of development, degree of dependency, or appearance of the child. Because the unborn is a human being (see “No One Knows When Life Begins” (Chapter 3) for a simple defense of the humanity of the unborn), all of the verses in the Old and New Testaments condemning the shedding of innocent blood and commanding us to protect the weak apply also to the unborn:

Ex. 20:13

“You shall not murder.”

Ex. 23:7

“You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute.

“Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.

“You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.”

Deut. 19:10-13

“Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.”

Prov. 24:10-12

“If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?”

Prov. 6:16-19

“There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.”

Prov. 31:8-9

“Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”

Matt. 19:16-19

“And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matt. 28:19-20

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Sometimes abortion advocates point to Exodus 21:22, saying it directly supports abortion. To see why the verse is actually a defense of the pro-life position, see Greg Koukl’s excellent article, “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion” (linked below). See also Scott Klusendorf’s “Dead Silence: Must the Bible Say Abortion is Wrong Before We Can Know that It’s Wrong?” for an incisive treatment of the Exodus passage as well as a response to the argument from Biblical silence on abortion.

(Note: I wrote the above years ago. Recently, through a World Magazine article by Leah Savas, I’ve become aware of another Biblical passage people are citing to justify abortion: Numbers 5:27. Alan Shlemon’s response is helpful: “Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?”)

* Note: All References: New American Standard Bible (Lockman Foundation: La Habra, CA 1995). Emphasis added.

An earlier version of this article appeared at Stand to Reason under the title, “Does the Bible Have Anything to Say About Abortion?”

---

Resources to Help:

• Steve Wagner, “Does the Bible Say Anything about Abortion?” (Printable version of this post)

• Greg Koukl “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion”

• Scott Klusendorf “Dead Silence: Must the Bible Say Abortion is Wrong Before We Can Know that It’s Wrong?”

• Alan Shlemon: “Did God Ordain Abortion as Punishment for Infidelity?”

Raw from the Fallout of Dobbs?

Towards the end of a recent Love3 online workshop, one participant I’ll call “Sabrina” startled me with these words: “Now I have to find a new place to live.”

Sabrina’s roommate had seen her support for the Dobbs decision on social media and said, “We need to talk.” She made it clear she no longer felt comfortable living with Sabrina, so Sabrina needed to move out.

My heart ached for Sabrina. What an unfortunate result of her reasonable rejoicing over a good Supreme Court decision! For those of us who share Sabrina’s support of Dobbs and strong opposition to legal abortion, it’s perhaps easy to sympathize with her pain of loss. This situation causes me also, though, to sympathize with Sabrina’s friend and others who are feeling so raw from the Dobbs decision that they’d be willing to lose friends over it. Many see abortion as a fundamental right and when it becomes clear that this “right” is not only no longer recognized by the Supreme Court but also not even recognized by those thought to be friends, it can be especially painful.

How should we respond to pro-life and pro-choice people in our acquaintance as they experience fallouts from the Dobbs opinion? One strategy some Christians are following is to simply avoid the topic of unwanted pregnancy and abortion altogether. If we follow this avoidance strategy, we aren’t really serving anyone – not the unborn, not the women and men struggling with past abortions who need to heal, not friends who need more conversation about spiritual topics, and not the Christians who have a special opportunity to make a difference right now.

Dobbs has provided perhaps the best opportunity of the past few decades to discuss unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and the intrinsic value of every human being. As our team embarks on a busy fall with a number of outreach events, I am looking forward to discovering if my hunch about Dobbs is correct. I suspect that the Supreme Court’s decision to return the abortion question to the states will motivate great numbers of people to engage in discussion for the first time.

Sure, if I’m right and people are ready to talk, and if I’m also right that many are sad, angry, and otherwise “raw” from the Dobbs opinion, the conversations will be difficult. But I’d much rather have a difficult conversation than no conversation at all. Getting meaningful conversations started with the millions of people who have been too apathetic to engage has been one of our chief struggles. If it’s true that they will now engage, we must not waste this moment when they are ready.

Think of the unborn children who have been getting the “raw end of the deal” for decades under the Roe and Casey regimes (and still under Dobbs in many, many states) when they are killed by abortion. Whether this reality leaves our emotions “raw” or not, how should we respond?

Instead of glibly flaunting the Dobbs opinion with a smug sense of victory, with no goal of dialogue, we should indeed start conversations, and we should begin with concern for the feelings of those who disagree. Then we should fearlessly offer reasons that compel any person who cares about human rights to include unborn children in their circle of concern. Instead of shrinking back, fearful of making a mistake, we should prepare our minds and hearts, then spend time praying for God’s help. With that foundation, we trust God to use each encounter, however complicated by emotions, for the good of each person and for the purposes of God’s kingdom.

We invite you to join us during our Love3 Workshops beginning September 15 (or at other events in your area – see below) to get equipped for this important task ahead of each of us.

Thank you for praying for us and partnering with us as we train Christians and other pro-life advocates to infuse these dark conversation spaces with the light of love and the light of truth.

Image by Andraz Lazic on Unsplash

---

Recent Articles and Posts by JFA Trainers

Recent Instagram post @picturejusticeforall

To Christians Upset About Roe’s Reversal – R. Dyer

What Now? – J. Gorr

Roe v. Wade Overturned – JFA Team

Attitude Can Make or Break... – R. Hotovy

Two Buckets, Take 2 – T. Cook

Question Helps Change a Mind – J. Bai

---

Recent and Upcoming Events—Fall 2022

8/27 Seminar (Wichita, KS)

8/29-30 Outreach at Wichita State (KS)

9/4 Presentation (Canton, OH)

9/8 Workshop (Denver, CO)

9/10 Seminar (Windsor, CO)

9/11 Seminar (Fort Collins, CO)

9/12-14 Outreach, Colorado State (Fort Collins, CO)

9/15 Love3 Workshops Begin (Online)

9/17 Seminar (Rogers, AR)

9/18 Seminar (Bentonville, AR)

9/18 Workshop (Ogallala, NE)

9/25 Workshop (Owosso, MI)

October Workshops in DC, TX, OH

October Outreach in DC, TX, OH

November Workshops and Outreach in TX

Jan. 2023 Workshops and Outreach in CA

What Now?

What is next after the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs? I have been trying to come up with a concise way of thinking about that for the last month or so. Recently on a podcast I heard Henry Olsen, a Washington Post opinion columnist and polling expert, give the following post-Dobbs action plan which I think best expresses my thoughts:

“Overturning Roe, in hindsight, will be seen as the easy part. And I know that sounds like an absurd thing to say, since it took us almost 50 years to overturn Roe. But the fact is that the majority of American public opinion says that life within the womb in the first trimester (when the vast majority of abortions occur) does not deserve legal protection. They do not see the unborn child at that stage as sufficiently human to demand protection of the law. That opinion can change, it was different 60 years or 70 years ago, but that’s the battle that pro-lifer’s need to fight.

Jeremy Gorr in conversation with some students at UCLA in May, 2022.

“We can eliminate abortion extensively throughout the nation only when we change public opinion in that way. That’s the real battle, changing public opinion about the legal status and the human status of the unborn child in the first trimester. When we win that battle, we will win nationwide. Until we win that battle, it will always be a case of carving out enclaves and doing what we can.”

(“Life After Dobbs,” Episode 9, 33:58)

We convinced five judges, now we must convince 300 million Americans.

Attitude Can Make or Break the Conversation

Recently, veteran JFA trainer Rebecca Hotovy found an unsent email in her drafts folder. It contained a nearly complete newsletter detailing a conversation from years back. I was so taken with it, I wanted to share it with you. (Rebecca still coaches other JFA speakers part-time during brief breaks from her full-time job as mom to two precious boys.)

We know this story definitely happened at the University of Oklahoma, and we think it happened around 2015. Whatever the date, the story beautifully illustrates the power of JFA’s dialogue approach, the power of a few carefully crafted questions asked with an open heart, and the way in which our attitude has the power to make or break a conversation. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

---

Impact Report, June 2022

Rebecca Hotovy, JFA Trainer Certification Coach and Trainer Emeritus

 Several years ago at the University of Oklahoma (OU), as I stood next to the large exhibit, a young man approached me. I’ll call him Chris. Confident that abortion was a woman’s right, Chris started to explain why he felt abortion should remain legal. Several feet from me stood another man, likely twenty to thirty years older than Chris. Although this older man was not a volunteer with Justice For All, he held a pro-life view. He was close enough to hear my conversation with Chris, and as the conversation continued, he listened in.

View fullsize

Rebecca (center) interacts with an OU student in 2015 near a small version of the JFA Exhibit.

In the first few minutes of that discussion, I took time to figure out the reasoning behind Chris’s belief that abortion should remain legal. Without first understanding why Chris held his view or how he came to the conclusion that abortion should remain legal, I knew I wouldn’t be able help him see errors in his reasoning. I was also aware that blatantly pointing out any errors may upset him enough that he would end the conversation. If he didn’t end the conversation but he stayed and continued talking, it would likely make him put up barriers of self-defense that would prevent him from wanting to listen to the ideas being presented, even if he was physically present and talking. Sadly, I’ve seen this happen many times – two people begin to dialogue about a controversial subject, quickly start defending their own positions, and turn a conversation into two monologues because they feel offended. If they feel offended for whatever reason, they may hear words coming from the other person’s mouth, but they don’t listen to the meaning of the message of those words.

In my conversation with Chris, over time it became clear that he did not believe the unborn was biologically human. When I felt I had built a good rapport with him, I allowed our conversation to take a turn. I started asking questions not just to discover his reasoning in defense of legal abortion but also to challenge that reasoning. At this point in the conversation I knew he would welcome the challenge because he could see that I didn’t desire to push my agenda down his throat. The challenge questions I asked were exactly the ones we train participants to ask when they attend the Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue seminar. I said something like:

Rebecca: Chris, do you mean that you don’t believe the unborn is biologically a human being or that the unborn isn’t a human being that deserves the same rights as you and I do?

Chris: Oh, it’s not biologically a human being at all. It’s just a clump of cells in those early stages.

Rebecca: If I could offer evidence for why the unborn is a human being, would you mind?

Chris: Sure. Go ahead.

Rebecca: If the unborn is growing, isn’t it alive?

Chris: [pausing and then slowly nodding his head] Yeah, sure I can agree with that.

Rebecca: If the unborn has human parents, isn’t it human?

Chris: [pausing and pondering the question with a slight grin on his face] Yes.

It was his answer to my third question, though, that threw me for a loop.

Rebecca: And living human beings, like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?

Chris: Oh my gosh. Yes.

There was another moment of silence as he continued to ponder the questions I had just asked that laid out a defense for the humanity of the unborn. We stood in silence for a while longer. Then he said something like:

Chris: Wow, okay, so I need to think through this more.

This was so unexpected to me because most students I talk to do not agree with each of these questions. They have all sorts of creative ideas to share, such as “Well, fire grows, and it’s not alive” or “Yeah, well a clump of cells might be alive and have human DNA, but that doesn’t mean it is a human being...Are tumors human beings?” or “Sperm are alive and have human DNA. Are all sperm valuable, too?”

Chris didn’t have any retorts like these. He simply agreed that the unborn was a human being.

Just as I thought the conversation was going really well, it took a turn for the worse. The pro-life man who had been listening in stepped close enough to us to join the conversation, turned to Chris, and snootily remarked, “She got ya! Didn’t she‽”

My heart dropped to my stomach. I had taken such care not to make Chris feel like I was attacking his position and to make him feel comfortable sharing his thoughts with me, and in less than three seconds someone who claimed to be pro-life obliterated all my efforts. Chris was as shocked as I was. His face showed it. He also became really nervous and started stumbling over his words.

One would think that I would easily become frustrated with people who hold beliefs against the dignity and sanctity of human life, but in this instance I became frustrated instead with this person who was like-minded to me in certain ways but didn’t realize the importance of treating the human standing in front of us with respect. Fortunately, I was able to jump back into the conversation, regain a good rapport with Chris, direct the conversation away from the “got ya” remark, and help him feel less nervous.

In hindsight, I now take another step back and realize that the art of learning to dialogue is a journey for everyone – the pro-life advocate and the pro-choice advocate alike. Prior to my training and work with Justice For All, if I had been that pro-life person standing there listening in on the conversation, I may have made a similar remark. Early on I didn’t understand that the way I shared the truth about the unborn could actually affect whether that truth helped pro-choice advocates change their minds. Thank you, Justice For All, for your gift of teaching me the beauty of dialoguing in love!

Note: Yes, that’s an intentional interrobang in the fourth from the last paragraph. Learn more about this controversial punctuation mark through this engaging podcast episode from 99 Percent Invisible.

Want to Make a Moral Impact? Help People Stop and Engage.

View fullsize

As our team joined me in Washington, DC last month for the March for Life and the National Pro-Life Summit conference, we were looking for ways to make a moral impact rather than to make just a moral statement (see my January letter for more on this).

At the march, we decided to join the masses with hand-made signs. At the last minute, I decided to pull JFA’s “Hope of Change” exhibit sign from the van. The sign features a Margot Rogers image of the unborn adorned with the same art style as Obama’s iconic campaign signs. We debated whether we would regret carrying the 2x4 foot sign around DC, but just after we settled ourselves on the lawn near the Washington monument, an AP Wire reporter approached wanting to know what the sign was about. The sign had done its job: it caused the viewer to stop and engage. (See pictures from the march at JFA’s Instagram page).

View fullsize

After the march, the main work of the day began: we boarded the metro to head to the offices of the Leadership Institute about 15 minutes outside the city. There we presented an interactive dialogue workshop to students from Colorado Christian University along with various others we had invited – about 50 in total. Why did we make this event interactive, featuring a heavy dose of role-play practice? We wanted these participants to stop being mere spectators of abortion discussions and instead engage those around them. So, we used the same emphasis in the workshop itself: we expected participants to engage with what we were teaching by practicing it themselves right there and then.

The same concern animated our team the next day at the National Pro-Life Summit hosted by Students for Life of America (SFLA). We were in the exhibitor hall where participants in the conference might walk by our table only once during the day. How could we help them stop and engage with the need to be trained to dialogue?

View fullsize

View fullsize

See more images on Instagram.

We decided that what stops pro-life advocates in a conference is probably not much different than what stops pro-choice advocates during our outreach events. On campus our poll tables and free speech boards are our most dependable tools that cause people to stop and engage, especially when coupled with an exhibit that challenges the status quo on abortion. (See JFA’s Instagram page for pictures from our February events at three Texas universities: UTSA, Texas State, and Tarleton State.) At this conference filled with passionate pro-life advocates, then, we decided to create special free speech boards with big questions to help these particular passersby stop and engage. It worked beautifully, as you can see from the conference pictures. We had a steady stream of conversations throughout the day about the need for training in dialogue.

Please pray for our upcoming seminar, workshop, and outreach events, that each will help pro-life advocates to stop and engage in learning to dialogue so that they can help pro-choice advocates to stop and engage in rethinking their positions on abortion.

How can you use this concept in your own life to help those around you stop and engage? I suggest sharing a picture of a free speech board from the conference with a pro-life friend, and ask, “How would you answer the question JFA asked on this conference free speech board?”

---

Recent and Upcoming Events

1/21 March for Life & Workshop (Washington, DC)

1/22 National Pro-Life Summit (Hosted by SFLA)

1/30-31 Workshops in Denton & Stephenville (TX)

2/1-2 Outreach at Tarleton State (Stephenville, TX)

2/13 Seminars (San Marcos & San Antonio, TX)

2/14-17 Outreach at Texas State & UTSA (TX)

2/23 UNL Club Meeting Presentation (Lincoln, NE)

2/26-27 Seminars (Wichita, KS)

2/28-3/1 Outreach at Wichita State (KS)

2/28-3/3 Love3 Interactive Workshop (Online)

March-May Outreach Events in AZ, CO, CA, KS

5/2-5 Love3 Interactive Workshop (Online)

See the JFA Calendar for more events and details!

See Instagram for pictures of recent events!

---

A Thought About Back-Alley Abortion

I recommend reading all of Steve Wagner’s article on back-alley abortion, but I wanted to note this section towards the end:

Deal with the More Sophisticated Version

Much of the time, the back-alley concern masks the fact that an abortion advocate is assuming the unborn is not a human being. In other words, she is saying, “It’s wrong to make a surgery more dangerous if it is innocuous.” We can agree in principle, then show that the unborn is a human being and the surgery is not innocuous at all.

Once we’ve made our case, the abortion advocate will likely shift to a more sophisticated argument:

“Even if abortion kills a human being, isn’t it better for fewer people to die (at least we can save the mother)? It is better that at least the mother live, than that she and her fetus should die in the back alley. Isn’t it worse for two to die than one?”

This argument assumes that the mother has no other choice but to kill the child. But, of course, she does have alternatives. As I like to say, she has a third option. It’s not, “Either she kills the child by legal abortion or she kills herself and her child by illegal abortion.” The third option is that she can refrain from killing anyone!

Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue – The Interactive Guide (v. 3.32), pp. 165-166 © 2019 Justice For All, Inc.