First the questions come. “What about choice? You would force a woman to be pregnant for 9 months with a child she didn’t want? You would want a child to enter the world unloved and unwanted? What do you do to actually improve the lives of women? Aren’t you only pro-birth, not actually pro-life?”
My back is immediately up and I stumble through trying to answer their questions.
What if I went on the offensive?
For every question I just listed, there’s an excellent question they could answer as well.
Why is it ok for a woman to choose to kill her baby?
Aren’t there lots of situations in life when we don’t have a choice, or aren’t allowed to do whatever we please with our bodies?
Do you think born children with neglectful, unloving parents ought to be killed?
What do you do to actually improve the lives of women?
How do you show respect for human rights if you don’t recognize a right to life for every human being?”
Obviously you’ll want to start with one question so as not to overwhelm them, and give them time to process! But this approach requires our respondent to go beyond the answers culture has fed them about bodily autonomy and choice. Recognizing that bodily autonomy is limited in cases of assault, or trespassing, ends the idea that bodily autonomy is a human right. Considering born children in difficult situations clarifies the stark reality of a victim being blamed for crimes committed against him or her.
The fact is, we often forget that we aren’t the ones with an extreme position in this debate. We are not the ones advocating for killing smaller, weaker human beings as a solution to a problem. Recognizing this is the first step in being able to take an offensive position rather than a defensive one, and will leave others with something to think about when they go home.