Two Buckets

Impact Report, September 2017

Tammy Cook, JFA Training Specialist

In this Impact Report, JFA dialogue artist and trainer Tammy Cook shares an approach to conversation that she’s found to be very helpful for people who are pro-choice because they are reluctant to tell others what to do.  Her “two buckets” concept helped Dixon think differently about abortion, even though seeing abortion as a harm had already been covered in the conversation once.  That’s one of the valuable lessons here: Many times, people need multiple passes at a concept from different angles in order to “see” the truth.  In the conversation, you’ll also see Tammy modeling other conversational approaches we teach in our seminar, including trotting out a toddler, asking questions with an open heart, and using visual aids.  - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

The Lory Student Center Plaza was buzzing with students on a crisp morning in April.  It was the first of three days in which Justice For All displayed the Stop and Think Exhibit at Colorado State University.  Hundreds of students glanced up at the 12-foot display as they rushed to class.  A student named “Dixon” stopped to ask a question.

Dixon:  What is this all about?

Tammy:  We are an organization named Justice For All.  We were invited by the Students for Life club to discuss the topic of abortion with CSU students.  We want to ask students what they think and then have a healthy and respectful dialogue.  What do you think?

View fullsize

JFA volunteer Bryan (above, second from right) talks with a student while Tammy (above, seated center) and another volunteer talk with Dixon.

Dixon:  I don’t think I have a say.  I don’t think we can tell other people what to do.

Tammy:  Thank you for sharing.  May I ask you a few questions to better understand your view?

Dixon:  Sure.

Tammy:  It sounds like it’s important to you to not tell others what they can or can’t do.  Do you mind sharing with me why that’s important to you?

Dixon:  Well, I don’t like people telling me what to do, and I think most people feel that way.

Tammy:  I agree with you – I think most people are sensitive to being told what they can or can’t do.

View fullsize

Tammy talks with Dixon while using the JFA Exhibit Brochure as a visual aid.  To see more photos from JFA's April 2017 outreach event at Colorado State University, visit the gallery page.

Dixon:  [nodding head] Right.

Tammy:  Let me give you a scenario and ask what you think about it.  Imagine that a woman has a two-year-old son, and she’s having a really tough life.  She can’t afford to feed or take care of her son.  This might seem like an odd question, but bear with me: “Should she be allowed to kill her two-year-old son, if that’s what she wants to do?”

Dixon:  No, absolutely not.

Tammy:  I agree.  Why can’t she kill him?

Dixon:  Because he’s a child.

Tammy:  Right.  Would you agree that he’s a human being like the mother?

Dixon:  Yes.

Tammy:  So if the unborn child is a human being like the two-year-old, then wouldn’t it be just as wrong to kill the unborn child through abortion as it would for the mother to kill her two-year-old?

Dixon:  I’ve never thought about it that way.  I guess that could change things.  [He paused.]  But I still don’t think we can tell others what they can or can’t do.  Each person should have the freedom to make his own choices.

Is abortion merely a personal preference, or is it a choice that harms? (“Two Buckets” Illustration by Joanna Bai)

Tammy:  I agree with you that freedom is important.  Maybe it would help to break down our types of choices into two categories.  Let’s picture them in two separate buckets.  Bucket number one contains choices that are our personal preferences.  My “personal preference” bucket would contain two of my favorite foods, strawberries and broccoli.  People can choose to eat or not eat strawberries or broccoli, but that choice does not harm other people.  Bucket number two contains choices that cause serious harm like murder, stealing, and rape.  Would you agree that people shouldn’t have the choice to do any of those three things? *

Dixon:  Yes.

Tammy:  Why not?

Dixon:  Because they’re wrong.

Tammy:  I agree.  Each of these harms a human being, right?

Dixon:  Yes.

Tammy:  Do you see the difference?  Someone who chooses to eat or not eat broccoli does not harm another person, but someone who chooses to rape does harm another person, right? 

Dixon:  Yes.

Tammy:  And since abortion takes the life of a human being, would you agree that it belongs in the same bucket as rape and stealing?

Dixon:  Yes.  Wow!  This has been enlightening.  You’ve given me a lot to think about.  What if I hear of someone who is thinking about having an abortion?  What should I do?

Tammy:  Good question!  Let me show you an app on my phone that you can download.  [I showed him a video of an eight-week embryo using the “See Baby Pregnancy Guide” app for smartphones and tablets from the Endowment for Human Development (EHD).  Click here to download the app for free.]

Dixon:  Wow, that’s cool.

Dixon had to get to class, but before he left, I was also able to show him how to use the JFA Exhibit Brochure to help someone considering abortion.  He thanked me for all of the new information and appeared to have a genuine change of heart about abortion.

* I said this a bit differently on campus, and Dixon understood my meaning.  I've slightly changed the wording in this dialogue to more clearly illustrate my meaning in print.  Please take this portion of the dialogue to be capturing the gist of the conversation rather than the precise wording I used on campus.

September 2021 / April 2022 Update: See below for another story of a conversation in which Tammy used the “Two Buckets” analogy.

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.

Must Women Make War?

Source: Getty.  (This image is featured on JFA's Art of Life Exhibit.)

Reading about Kate O'Beirne's death in a memorial by Hadley Arkes, I came across her description of the abortion right as a sort of act of "war" in the struggle for equality: 

"Feminist fundamentalism holds that the battle of the sexes can’t be won unless women make war on the tiniest enemies of their independence."

What do you think?  Do women need abortion to assert their equality?  Could a path to equal recognition and equal treatment without killing be possible?  (See the "Erase" sign in our Stop and Think Exhibit for a visual representation of this question.  Warning: Graphic)  Does abortion constitute the making of war on unborn humans, the "enemies of independence"?  Or, is Kate O'Beirne misleading her reader with overblown rhetoric?   

[Note: That quote originated in this interview on National Review.]

VIDEO: "I've Started to Change My View"

Sarah, talking to CSU students during her 2017 JFA mission trip experience (Watch her share about one outreach conversation in the video, below.)

Sarah volunteered with JFA as a mission trip participant in 2017.  During her training experience, she took part in seminars and a two-day outreach event at Colorado State University (CSU).  In this video, Sarah shares about one encouraging conversation in which she clearly saw that thoughtful dialogue about abortion "really does change people's minds."

Note:  Special thanks to Genesis Media Solutions for producing this video.

QUICK LINKS:

• Join Us for a Mission Trip

• Explore Resources for Students & Clubs

• Learn about Our Passion

• Invest in JFA's Mission

• Join the Conversation on Twitter

Recent and Upcoming Events - Please Pray

Please pray with us that God will cause hearts and minds to change as a result of conversations created by our staff, volunteers, and audience members:

JFA volunteer Laura Haschke shares the JFA Exhibit Brochure with a student at the University of Kansas (KU).  To see more JFA event photos, click here.

Austin, TX:  8/20,23 — Interactive Workshops — Hyde Park Baptist (Jeremy Gorr, Jon Wagner)

Wichita, KS:  8/23,24 — Poll Table Outreach — Wichita State University

West Lafayette, IN:  9/4 — Interactive Workshop — St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church

West Lafayette, IN:  9/5,6 — Large Exhibit Outreach Event — Purdue University

Lawrence, KS:  9/24 — Interactive Seminar — St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center

Chanhassen, MN:  9/30 — Interactive Workshop — St. Hubert Catholic Church

Minneapolis, MN:  10/2,3 — Kiosk Outreach Event — University of Minnesota

Austin, TX:  10/14 — Interactive Seminar — For the City Center

List of All Recent and Upcoming Events 

Photos from Recent Events

Featured Resource - "Why I Love Siberians"

In his letter this month entitled "Why I Love Siberians," JFA’s Director, Steve Wagner, shares three things that you can use to prepare for conversations:  (1) In the third paragraph, he summarizes the case for the pro-life position in a memorable way.  (2) He then shares an analogy that builds common ground about the difficulty of seeing early embryos as valuable, but also challenges listeners to let facts determine how they act towards the embryo.  (3) Finally, he gives some perspective on how to judge whether or not a conversation is worthwhile.

Featured Conversation Starter - "Not alive. Not human. Not biology?"

Share Joanna Bai’s recent post, “Not alive.  Not human.  Not biology?” to start a conversation about abortion in a natural way with a friend.  In the post Joanna isolates a short clip from Stephanie Gray’s recent talk at Google headquarters (the talk has more than 106,000 views on YouTube) and then asks three questions to encourage discussion about whether or not the unborn is alive and human...and whether or not these questions matter.

Not alive. Not human. Not biology?

Stephanie Gray refers to a picture of an embryo at seven weeks during her presentation at Google headquarters.

It's nearly impossible to avoid the question of "when life begins" when talking to people about abortion.  In a presentation at Google headquarters, Stephanie Gray shares questions she uses in her conversations on the subject (11:04 - 13:30).  See the clip below.  After watching, we suggest answering the following questions, preferably in dialogue with someone else:

• "Biologically speaking, when do you think a living human organism begins to exist?"

• "Do you believe it is possible for pro-choice and pro-life advocates to agree on a clear answer to this question?"

• "How do you integrate the biology of when humans begin with your view on abortion, if at all?"

(You can also respond using the comments section below or using the version of this post at our @7conversations Twitter feed.)

More on this Topic: 

• What is the unborn? (scientific opinions and stunning visuals)

Why I Love Siberians

August 2017

Letter from Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Norman and John wandered near our “Should Abortion Remain Legal?” poll table at Wichita State University, so I struck up a conversation with them.  Norman did most of the talking.  He was a self-proclaimed nihilist who believed no one can know what’s true for someone else about morality.  As I explored with Norman his particular views about knowledge, he admitted they also entailed that no one can know what’s true regarding science or the five senses.  He even declared that there was no reality about truth or morality. 

Norman and I discussed how our different views of knowledge also affected our views of how we should treat the unborn.  John mostly listened.  Finally, Zachary, the JFA volunteer we featured in fall 2016, engaged Norman in conversation.  This gave John and me the space to have a conversation for about ten minutes.  Those ten minutes with John were worth the sweat I had poured into the previous eighty with Norman.

I briefly described to John a case for the pro-life position, centered on a simple observation about how you and I got to where we are now.  From fertilization onward, all that’s been added to us is food.  One might note also that time elapsed and that we needed a certain environment to continue living, but there has not been any essential change of our nature.  There hasn’t even been any insertion of new DNA.  We are actively developing ourselves from within, and we have been doing this since the time of fertilization.  Indeed, if we are the sort of being now with fundamental human rights, then we must have been that same sort of being with fundamental human rights from the time we began to exist, at fertilization.  It is difficult, in any case, to conceive of how we could have gained something durable like human rights by eating.

John and I looked at the pictures of humans throughout development as we discussed these things.  At one point he shared that as an elementary education major he has an immediate appreciation for children.  “I’m just not drawn to the embryo, though, in the same way I’m drawn to infants and children.”  He meant that he didn’t feel affection for the embryo, that he didn’t connect with the embryo as a child.  This was especially true for the embryo early in development, a tiny being who doesn’t look much like us at all.

“I understand...I feel the same way,” I said.  “I don’t identify with the early embryo.  Take the picture of the embryo at implantation.  It looks like an orange with fungus on it.  I’m not naturally tempted to put this picture on my wall and say, ‘Behold the child!’  That’s the reality of my feelings about the embryo.  I don’t naturally have any affection for it.  But then I have to look at the facts about the embryo: It is a living human organism, and since it shares my human nature, wouldn’t it have the same human rights I have?  It’s a very young human, so wouldn’t I call it a child?  Reflecting on these things moves me to work to bring my affections into alignment with the facts.”

I love Siberians not because I have a natural affection or concern for them, but because of the facts.  The fact that they are human beings compels me to work to bring my natural affections in line with the facts. 
It’s the same with the embryo.

Searching for a parallel example to share with John, I said, “I don’t know anyone from Siberia.  In fact, it’s worse: I don’t even really know anything at all about Siberia.  I just know it’s that really cold place up in the northeast “corner” of what used to be called the USSR.  I have never met a Siberian, and I don’t know what Siberians look like.  I don’t even know if they would want to be called Siberians or if that term would offend them.  Consequently, I don’t have a lot of natural concern for Siberians.  As I reflect on Siberians, though, and as I consider what US policy should be regarding Siberia and its inhabitants, I have to bring my affections (or lack of affections) into closer alignment to the facts.  I have to re-train my feelings and affections to “see” the Siberian as an equal to me, even though I’ve never met one.

In this discussion of the embryo and the Siberian, I wanted to give voice to John’s (and my) feelings about the embryo, since they are normal and natural, but I also wanted to point out that our lack of sympathetic feelings about the embryo doesn’t constitute a good reason to think the embryo doesn’t have rights or value.  I also wanted to suggest the virtuous way to handle the matter: seek to train our feelings to fit the facts.

John seemed genuinely interested.  He said that he appreciated learning about the topic.  He had a gentle way about him, a spirit of inquiry that was refreshing.  As we closed up our outreach for the day, we watched as Zack accompanied both Norman and John to the student union.  Let’s pray for more conversations among the three of them, but let’s especially pray for John, that God will help him think carefully about all of these things. 

POSTSCRIPT:

WAS MY CONVERSATION WITH NORMAN WORTH 80 MINUTES?

“Should I keep talking to Norman?” I asked myself after feeling like I was “beating my head against a wall” for a half hour.  No matter how many questions and hard-to-swallow implications I could bring to the table, it seemed like nothing would help Norman see that we can know some things about both science and morality. 

To make matters worse, since John was contemplative, he could barely get a word in edgewise.  Every time he opened his mouth, Norman would cut in and interpret for him.  “This is what John means, and that affirms what I just said a minute ago…” and then Norman would continue on.  I would stop Norman and say, “No, I really want to hear what John thinks.”  Every time I redirected things to John, though, he would say a few words, then pause, thinking things through.  This gave Norman an opening to redirect things back to himself.

If the conversation with Norman hadn’t led to my conversation with John (described in this month’s letter), would it have been worth it?  Listening to someone like Norman is worthwhile on its face, since he is a human being with intrinsic value, but this principle doesn’t tell me how much time I should spend with him.  I have to consider what time I have available to spend and who else may need my time.  Norman seemed completely close-minded, so perhaps I should have ended the conversation sooner.  I realized, though, that the conversation was worth having — for John’s sake.  Because Norman’s confidence might have misled John after our conversation, abandoning the conversation and leaving arguments unanswered might have harmed John.

In contrast to Norman, John seemed to have his common sense still intact.  He thought some things were actually, in reality, wrong.  He thought some things could be known to be true.  He was open-minded, but he didn’t seem easily persuaded by either Norman or me.  So my goal was simple: I sought to put Norman’s views and my views side by side so that John could see them clearly.  For example, I pointed out that my view of knowledge took rape seriously as a real moral evil and took kindness seriously as a real moral good.  Norman’s view of knowledge, on the other hand, could not take these things in any serious way to be real evils or goods.  Making opposing views clear is a modest goal you can aim for in conversations you have this month as well.

VIDEO: Why a JFA Internship?

JFA intern Grace Fontenot shares what sparked her interest in a JFA internship and discusses what the experience has been like, so far. Join the Conversation: www.twitter.com/7conversations Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/trainthousands Discover Resources for Students and Clubs: www.jfaweb.org/students Invest in JFA's Mission: www.jfaweb.org/invest

Above, JFA intern Grace Fontenot shares what sparked her interest in a JFA internship and discusses what the experience has been like so far.  Take a look!

Grace Fontenot (see video) interacts with a student at Fort Hays State University in September 2016. Support Grace's JFA internship by clicking here.

Note:  Special thanks to Genesis Media Solutions for the excellent production on this video.

Quick Links:  

• Learn More about the Intern Scholarship Fund

• Explore Resources for Students

• Inquire about an Internship

Pray for Conversations - July

View fullsize

Catherine, right, prays for a woman at a Justice For All outreach event.  We have learned a great deal from Catherine’s focus on God and on prayer.  Please join us now in praying for her!

We thank God for Catherine Wurts and for God's work through Catherine's years of service with JFA.

Please pray with us for Catherine Wurts as she leaves JFA this month to pursue graduate studies.  As a JFA volunteer (2006-2008) and a JFA staff member (2009-2017), Catherine has directly impacted thousands of people through conversations during outreach events, through her public presentations, and through personal mentoring of participants in JFA’s Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue Training Program.  In addition to her roles as dialogue artist and trainer, Catherine served as JFA’s Intern Recruiter and Trainer Certification Specialist.  More importantly, Catherine encouraged our staff towards a deeper devotion to God and to prayer.  We thank God for the sacrifice and devotion Catherine has given to JFA’s staff, volunteers, and mission over these many years, and she will be sorely missed.  Please pray for God’s guidance for Catherine throughout her graduate program and beyond, and pray for the conversations Catherine will create in the coming years.  See Catherine's staff alumni page for some of the highlights from her work with JFA through the years.  In the comments section below, you can leave a note about what her work has meant to you personally.

(Note, see also our Event Calendar for a list of events about which you can pray, including upcoming major events in IN, MN, TX, and OK.)

Featured Resource: Stephanie Gray Featured on Talks at Google

Can you imagine a skilled pro-life dialogue artist speaking at Google headquarters?  What if that presentation then was posted by Talks at Google on its YouTube channel?  This is exactly what’s just happened.  We’re ecstatic that our friend Stephanie Gray has recently been featured by Google.  By watching, you can both learn from her moving presentation and help it surpass 100,000 views (as of this post, it has over 98,200 views).  In her talk, “Abortion: From Controversy to Civility,” Stephanie modeled powerfully how sharing stories, questions, and thought experiments can transform your conversations about abortion.  The whole talk is just over an hour long and is certainly worth watching.  If you’d like to start with a short segment, however, we’ve highlighted two minutes from the Q&A portion (53:26 - 55:26).  Listen for Stephanie's great advice on starting conversations in a pro-choice environment.  (Steve Wagner notes that he and Stephanie both look back to a support-raising retreat they attended in 2001, led by Scott Klusendorf, as formative in the pro-life work they went on to do and continue to this day.) 

Featured Conversation Starter: "Equal Rights for Whom?"

Use the post, “Equal Rights for Whom? — Stephanie Gray at Google” to start a conversation in a natural way with a friend who has any perspective on abortion.  The post is written with the pro-choice person in mind and features a two-minute clip from Stephanie Gray’s talk at Google in which she discusses the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  Then the post asks two questions that get the conversation started.  To view the post and share it on social media, use the links below.  If you use this tool to start a conversation, please let us know how it goes!

"Equal Rights for Whom?" - Stephanie Gray at Google (video clip)

Stephanie Gray speaks to the audience gathered for Talks at Google.

The question of women's rights and abortion many times is framed in terms of human rights.  In a talk at Google headquarters, Stephanie Gray discussed the concept of human rights and what this concept means for abortion rights.  During her talk, she began with a point of common ground on which many people agree: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (21:07 - 24:41).  After watching, we suggest answering the following questions, preferably in dialogue with someone else:

"Do you agree with the UN Declaration's approach to human rights and personhood?  If you believe in human rights, on what do you think they are based - human nature or something else?"

(You can also respond using the comments section below or using the version of this post at our @7conversations Twitter feed.)

More on Stephanie Gray:

• View Stephanie's full talk at Google by clicking here.

• Visit www.stephaniegray.info to learn more about Stephanie and her book, Love Unleashes Life: Abortion & the Art of Communicating Truth.

An Example to Follow - Stephanie Gray's Talk at Google

[Video Starts During Q&A Portion] Stephanie Gray responds to a question from the audience during her presentation at Google headquarters.

[Full Presentation] Google's description reads: "Stephanie Gray, internationally renowned speaker and author, applies the Socratic method and storytelling to the debate surrounding abortion. She invites the audience to be 'pro-conversation' on a topic that can be one of the most divisive, and demonstrates that it is possible to be gracious and respectful when encountering different ideas."

We’re ecstatic that our friend, international pro-life speaker Stephanie Gray, has recently been featured by Talks at Google at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California.  In her talk, "Abortion: From Controversy to Civility," Stephanie modeled powerfully how sharing stories, questions, and thought experiments can transform your conversations about abortion.

This whole talk is just over an hour long and is certainly worth watching.  If you'd like to start with a short segment, however, we've highlighted two minutes from the Q&A portion (53:26 - 55:26).  Listen for Stephanie's great advice on starting conversations in a pro-choice environment.* 

In the coming days, we will highlight a few more short segments on our blog and our @7conversations Twitter feed.  However, these upcoming posts will be designed to share so that you can use them to start a conversation of your own.  If you use one of the upcoming posts to create dialogue, let us know how it goes!

Visit www.stephaniegray.info to learn more about Stephanie and her book, Love Unleashes Life: Abortion & the Art of Communicating Truth.

*Note:  Also included in this video clip is a response to the question of abortion in the case of rape.  Stephanie does a great job of compassionately and clearly addressing this topic in the short time format.  In personal conversations about abortion and the question of rape, you'll usually have a bit more time.  For additional suggestions on ways to approach this, see JFA's Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue - The Interactive Guide (pages 20-22).