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.
Amnesty International is one organization fighting for an abortion right, but Breda O’Brien points out that “Amnesty does not want to address the factors that lead women to choose abortion. It just wants abortion.” This single point is perhaps the most important argument available for the pro-life movement. This is true in the debate raging over Ireland’s abortion laws, and it is also true in the United States and here in Canada.
Abortion is seen as a starting-point solution, where the first option we give struggling or hurting women is the legal right to kill their babies. Pro-abortionists tell you they care about social programs, health care and a women’s right to choose while pro-lifers care only about the baby, not the woman. But the pro-abortion claim to care about women is proven otherwise by the fact that violence is their starting point for an answer.
Being pro-woman means creating a world where women need never feel desperate, alone, or inadequate for the role of motherhood. Being pro-abortion tells a woman she will be desperate and need a way out, she will ultimately have to make a decision that is hers alone to cope with, and she is inadequate to consider motherhood as an option.
Wanting abortion has come to overshadow anything else the pro-abortion movement may say it stands for, and it is up to the pro-life movement to truly stand up for choice, and for women.
]]>
Talking about abortion is really tough with people who don’t agree with us. Our hackles rise, our stomaches churn, and a part of us just wants to lead with, “How can you possibly be ok with killing another human being simply because it’s unwanted?” We can walk away from these conversations fuming, upset, feeling justified in our anger and despair, wondering how our words failed to get through.
We too often fail to take just a moment to stand in the other person’s shoes and realize they are feeling exactly the same way about us.
So how can we move past simple agreement or heated argument, and move into serious, passionate debate where minds may actually be changed?
Realize first that you enter the discussion with a goal to change a mind, not the intention of truly listening, assessing the information, and possibly changing your mind. You know you are in the right on this one. And the person you are talking to goes into the conversation with the same mindset.
If you recognize at the outset that you are unlikely to change their mind in one conversation, you can calmly present your case, then let it be. Let them walk away with the memory of what you said, not the memory of how you acted. Imagine them blogging about your conversation, or how it would play out on YouTube. Don’t give them the benefit of harsh, unkind words and a raised voice. Leave the door open to further conversation, should they ever want to follow-up with you.
Be bold, uncompromising, and clear, yes. But do not be hateful, accusing, or one-sided. Hear their arguments, truly listen to what they are saying. Answer specifically; really respond rather than just reacting. Be willing to participate in a real conversation, with the goal of having a lasting impact after the interaction is long done.
In her piece On Changing Minds, ProWomanProLife co-founder Andrea Mrozek says, “We all need time to make good decisions. We all, I think, go back and forth with our decisions. Unplanned pregnancy does not allow for this. You can go back and forth, back and forth, but if you choose abortion, it is final and there is absolutely no undo button. If you choose life, can you decide not to parent? Absolutely. But if you choose abortion, you don’t ever get to reconsider.”
Neither pro-choice or pro-life adherents do a pregnant woman any favours by pressuring her to make a decision without giving her time and space. Similarly, we do ourselves no favours in the abortion debate by hoping each conversation we have about abortion will result in a changed mind and heart. It’s going to take time, but, as Elvis Presley said, “Truth is like the sun. You can can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t going away.”
]]>Michael Coren facilitates a discussion between Rachael Segal and Christina Alaimo on the morality of abortion based on how perfect the pre-born child is. Rachael argues that killing is justified when the baby has Down syndrome and Christina counters this claim with the message that physical or mental ability is not just cause for killing anyone.
Christina does a fabulous job at bringing the discussion back to the pre-born child and the fact that Rachael is being intellectually dishonest. Watch the eight minute debate by clicking below.
