Biblical Response to those seeking abortion

How to Give Principled Answers in a Sound Bit World

By Christopher Corbett

Yes, the polls reflect a problem. Too many Americans are thinking too little and accepting too much from elites in the media and politics who have become tools to densensitize us to evil.

As a Point of View listener, you probably know better. Your mind is being renewed with scriptural truth on the points of confrontation between the values of the world and the values of Christ.

But how can we get our fellow citizens in the "mushy middle" -- citizens who often turn out to be sitting next to us in our evangelical churches -- to snap out of the secular hypnosis? There are many strategems you can employ: get them to listen to Point of View, get them to read a good book, and that sort of thing.


But what can you personally say to them?

How can you open your mouth and put something valuable into their ears, especially considering that we live in a frantic age when communication often comes in fragments and shards -- at a coffee break, in a waiting room, in a car, on a brief walk, at lunch in a noisy restaurant, calling a talk show, speaking for three minutes at a city council or school board meeting, writing a quick letter-to-the-editor, or just standing around for a few minutes? Here are a few ideas. They are not meant to be a substitute for an in-depth ideological grasp of these issues. Nor are they offered as a "final script." These are merely some ideas to start your thinking about how to frame brief "sound bite" conversations as you try to open minds and persuade your "mushy middle" friends and colleagues to move in the right direction.

Issue: Abortion

Situation: Your friend doesn’t like abortion, but isn’t sure government should "butt in." Here are several possible approachs:

Objective: Establish the unborn child’s right to live, using contemporary "rights" talk.

Possible Approach: "Innocent babies have rights. If government isn’t there to protect the rights of an innocent baby, then what good is government? If government isn’t there to protect the rights of innocent babies, then nobody’s rights are safe." (You may want to add that unborn babies have a hearbeat, brainwaves, and voluntary motion by 10 weeks after conception. However, even most pro-abortion advocates now accept the humanity of the unborn baby, so you can often skip these statistics).

Objective: Sell the rights of the unborn child without attacking the "rights" of the mother. Surveys show most "pro-choice" people perceive the pro-life position as "anti-woman."

Possible Approach: "The pro-life position is that society must help two people, not just one. You help the innocent baby by keeping it from being killed, and you help the mother by supporting her through the pregnancy and offering adoption if necessary. There are hundreds of certified Crisis Pregnancy Centers which offer this service. You have to help both people --- the mother and the innocent baby. But the other side actually kills one of the parties; that totally misses the objective."

(Note the continued use of the term "innocent baby" and positive words like "help.") Objective: Paint abortion supporters as extremists. People in the mushy middle don’t like an extreme and will instinctively move away from it.

Possible approach: "The pro-choice movement is very extremist. Look at what they believe! No standard medical regulations for unsanitary abortion clinics. No laws requiring parent’s consent or notification if their 13-year-old daughter wants an abortion. Abortion-on-demand for all months of pregnancy. Abortions done at the moment of birth, which are legal because they fought for partial-birth abortions. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If you’re looking for extremism, the pro-choice movement is it!

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, want to help both people in the pregnancy: the mom and her baby. We say, give support to the mother and save the baby’s life. That’s the opposite of extremism. If fact, what could be more reasonable?"

Issue: Homosexual Rights

Situation: Your friend doesn’t personally go for the gay lifestyle, but thinks gays and lesbians should be "given their rights."

Objective: Reframe issue to focus on victimization of everyday religious Americans

Possible Approach #1: "Do you mean to tell me that if a religious, 55-year old shoe store owner refuses to hire an applicant who is openly gay, or a religious, 65-year-old widow refuses to rent out an apartment to a lesbian couple, that you want the government to criminalize that store owner or widow? Or open them up to a devastating lawsuit that would bankrupt them? If criminalizing private religious people who just want to live their lives is what gay rights is all about, then I’m against gay rights!"

Possible Approach #2: "The teachings of various religions in our diverse country say homosexual behavior is wrong. Most Americans agree. Should the government force them to accept or affirm behavior they feel is immoral just because a rich, powerful lobby thinks government should do so?"

Situation: Your company, XYZ Corp, wants to initiate pro-homosexual sensitivity training, or is pressuring you to attend.

Possible Approach: "I’m a team player and I’m willing to work enthusiastically with anyone on our team, gay or otherwise. But as a Christian I can’t affirm behavior I think is immoral. XYZ Corp should not force any employees to affirm behavior they may find immoral just because a rich, powerful lobby thinks it should do so. This is bad for morale. I respectfully request that XYZ acknowledge the right of religious employees not to be forced to affirm behavior we consider sinful."
(Note the use of the words affirm, force, and rights.)

Issue: Bill Clinton

Situation: Your friend thinks Clinton is immoral, but that it has nothing to do with his job.

Objective: Connect Clinton’s character with "real life" consequences.

Possible Approach: "It’s tempting to believe that. But then I ask myself, ‘Do I really think the President of the United States can avoid being a role model for my kids? Not a chance! If he gets away with things, my kids will be tempted to think they can, too. Plus, am I willing to bet my economic security on the trustworthiness of a leader who cheats on his own family? Not a chance!’ This guy is bad for my kids and he’s a disaster waiting to happen because you can’t trust what he says."

Issue: Sex education

Objective: Reframe issue to focus on the success of abstinence (and obvious failure of alternatives).

Possible Approach: "Sex education as taught for decades by Planned Parenthood has obviously failed. The more condoms they handed out and the more explicit sex education became, the higher the rates of teen sex, teen pregnancy, AIDS and abortion have become. But the good news is that programs that teach only abstinence work. Studies show they have a much better success rate! So let’s pull the plug on methods and organizations that don’t work, and switch to something that does."

* * * Technique: Repetition of common themes is key, whether in an ongoing "conversation" over several weeks with a friend, or engaging in an organized debate or letter-writing campaign.

Answering liberal critics: When someone asks an honest question, either give them an answer or promise to find one. But the Bible also warns, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes." When the Pharisees asked Jesus "trick" questions, he often ignored the question and kept plowing ahead with truth. Sometimes you will need to do that too.

Again, you can probably modify these suggestions or replace them with better ones of your own. But the pattern should always be the same: 1. See things through the eyes of the person or group you are trying to persuade; 2. Pick a very limited, specific line of reasoning designed not to argue with them, but to strategically shift them toward your viewpoint or change their mental framework for evaluating an issue; 3. Choose your words carefully.

It may be a sound bite world, but principles still matter and wisdom can still be communicated.

Copyright & Reproduction Limitations

This data file/document is the sole property of National Center for Freedom & Renewal (NCFR), the parent organization of Point of View. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file and/or document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright © 2003 NCFR) and this Copyright/Reproduction Limitations notice. http://www.pointofview.net/


Point of View Radio Talk Show uses the powerful tool of live, daily, national talk radio to defend a Biblical Christian worldview and to proclaim Christian solutions for the problems of America. Point of View---and its parent ministry, NCFR---aims to restore the greatness of Christian thought and values to every area of American life. Point of View is a non-profit ministry which serves because of the gifts of like-minded Christians throughout the nation.

IF you are thinking of having abortion please read these first.

for a Pregnant Teen
Abortion Risks
You want go through it alone
first thing first.
Who Needs Counseling?

Human Life Questions and Answers — Abortion and Euthanasia

For Parents of Teens

Behind the Scenes of a Teen Pregnancy
When She's Expecting
When Your Son Is the Father

PREGNANCY HELPLINE

Help line(1-800-672-2296)Free and confidential
think about it on-line
The Father's House

Political Hot Issues
Frontline Apologetics