To show just how easy it can be to start a conversation about abortion, in the course of jury duty on Thursday I was able to have three interactions referencing the LA Times article from that morning (about the shift Democrats are making toward an "antiabortion tone").
Here's how the first two interactions happened. Two prospective jurors were sitting behind me. Let's call them Jim and Dave. Dave was talking to Jim about global warming, expressing some skepticism. Jim was interested, but quiet. I offered a few comments and built some rapport with both men. Then Jim asked for my copy of the LA Times. I commented that there was a great article on abortion today, right there on the front page. I summarized the article briefly, and Dave blurts out that he is totally against abortion but his wife and daughter are pro-choice. Then he made a comment about "it's her body so what I can I say," referring to his wife. I intended to ask a question about this to challenge the notion, but we discussed another aspect for a moment, and then Dave got called to a jury. Sometimes environments like these should lead us to be a bit more efficient than I was...I'll never get the chance to help this man see the problem with the "it's her body" idea.
Jim then started asking me questions about how important abortion is to me, compared to the "war against Muslim terror." I clarified that I am equally concerned about any human being who is unjustly killed regardless of size or religion or location. It turned out that Jim was a long-time listener to STR's radio program (what a coincidence!), but he just thought the importance of the abortion issue was dwarfed by the importance of the war on terror.
At lunch, I went to Persian restaurant and sat outside at an open table. A man (who later said he was a gay Muslim), helped me navigate the menu. Let's call him Wallace. Wallace asked me some question, probably about what I was doing. I said I was on jury duty but that I was pretty sure I wouldn't get on a jury. Wallace asked, "Are you an attorney?". (Note how my statement created a bit of mystery and elicited this next question and interest in the conversation.)
I said no...that I am a speaker on bioethics...on abortion. He asked why I chose that line of work. I made a case similar to my "One-Minute Pro-Life Apologist" article. If the only sufficient ground for human rights is the thing we all have equally -- our human nature -- and if the unborn share that human nature (which they do), then we have to protect them the way we do adults.
He seemed to agree, but proceeded to talk about how intractable the conflict seems to be. I pulled out the Times article and pointed out the attempts to build common ground that were there (like Hillary Clinton's comment). I asked him if he wished there were fewer abortions...he said, "Of course!" as if "everybody believes that."
We continued to talk, and I even was able to bring out a Justice For All brochure (you need one of these - call 800-281-6426) and showed him a few in-utero pictures (he didn't want to see the graphic pictures, so I respected his wishes and didn't open those pages of the brochure. I mentioned that many students we talk to don't even realize a four-week embryo has a heartbeat and a seven-week embryo has arms and fingers...
In hopes of using his concern about gay rights as a lead-in to discuss whether he would grant the same rights to the unborn, I asked if he had felt treated well in his 27 years in the States. His answer surprised me. (Indeed, one of the most important reasons to build common ground is to listen long enough to prevent misunderstanding). He said he has been fine, and what frustrates him are homosexuals who create discrimination for themselves by making themselves conspicuous (his idea, not mine). Interesting discussion. I had to get back to jury duty and he wished me well. It seemed we parted on good terms.
There are many lessons here. First, starting conversations is not hard, if we are purposeful to do it. The fact that I posted a blog encouraging others, actually encouraged me to practice what I preach. So accountability, or bringing others into your decision to try to have conversations, helps.
Also, I learned that I should be purposeful about sharing the most important information or asking provocative questions early in the conversation, just in case the conversation has to end abruptly. Notice the difference between my conversations with Dave and Wallace. In the latter, I placed my case up front and got more accomplished.
Finally, the value of building common ground is obvious from these interactions. Because throughout the conversations I used common media products (newspaper article about Democratic politicians, photograph of an embryo) and common concerns (my profession, jury duty, politicians in the news, making abortion rare, treatment of homosexuals, human rights, global warming, etc.), the dialogue was civil and the participants engaged.
I believe we should always remember that our primary message should be regarding evangelism. We should always discuss God's law and His grace before abortion, homosexuality, and any other type of secondary discussion.
Posted by: David | July 28, 2007 at 08:51 PM
A FEW MONTHS AGO, WHILE PLAYING CARDS WITH A GROUP, A WOMAN ASKED MY OPINION ON ABORTION. I HAD TO REPLY THAT I WAS NOT FULLY FOR OR AGAINST. THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I TOLD HER ABOUT A YOUNG 21 YEAR OLD WOMAN I KNOW WHO FREELY ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD 6 ABORTIONS. SHE USED ABORTION AS HER PREFERRED BIRTH CONTROL METHOD.
THE WOMAN AFREED THAT THAT WAS RIGHT, BU ASKED IF I DIDN'T THINK WOMEN HAD THE RIGHT OF CHOICE. I ASKED HER IF WOMEN HAD THE RIGHT OF CHOICE, WHY AREN'T THE SAME RIGHT OF CHOICE GIVEN TO THE MEN??
I TOLD HER OF A YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL MAN WHOSE FIRL FRIND GOT PREGNANT.
HE ASKED HER TO MARRY HIM. SHE SAID NO, SHE DIDN'T WANT TO MARRY HIM.
HE ASKED HER ABOUT AN ABORTION. SHE SAID NO WAY.
HE ASKED IF SHE WAS GOING TO GIVE THE BABY FOR ADOPTION TO A LOVING FAMILY. SHE SAID NO, SHE INTENDED TO KEEP THE BABY.
SHE HAD TWINS!!
AFTER THE BIRTH, SHE SUED THE EX BOY FRIND FOR CHILD SUPPORT. HE HAD TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, GET 2 LOW PAYING JOBS TO PAY THE CHILD SUPPORT, GIVE UP HIS PLANS FOR COLLEGE, GIVE UP HIS VIRTUAL FUTURE, AND PAY HER FOR THESE BABYS FOR 2YEARS BECAUSE OF HER CHOICES. HE DIDN'T GET ANY CHOICES.
THE WOMAN TOLD ME "THATS WHAT HE GETS FOR NOT KEEPING IT IN HIS PANTS!"
SHE HAD NO ANSWER WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE WASN'T SAYING "THAT WHAT SHE GETS FOR NOT KEEPING IT IN HER PANTS!" IT TOOK BOTH OF THEM TO MAKE THE BABY.
IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE MALE THAT IS THE SEDUCER OR INSTIGATOR OF SEX. HE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOICE IF SHE HAS IT.
I AM NOT FOR, OR AGAINST ABORTION, BUT I DISLIKE ONE SIDED ARGUMENTS. IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I CANNOT AGREE THAT A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION, JUST TO PREVENT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A 9 MONTH PREGNANCY, WHEN THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF COUPLES WHO WOULD LOVE TO TAKE THE BABY. IT JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE..
Posted by: DELL | July 29, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Here is something I read on abortion today, it made me cringe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/site/newsweek/
Why does it always seem to be an abortion vs "keep an unwanted child" choice? Why do pro-choicers rarely include adoption in their arguments?
Posted by: Nina | July 30, 2007 at 06:40 AM
"The great thing about video is that you can see the mental wheels turning as these people realize that they somehow have overlooked something central while they were slinging certainties. Nearly 20 years ago, in a presidential debate, George Bush the elder was asked this very question, whether in making abortion illegal he would punish the woman who had one. "I haven't sorted out the penalties," he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can't countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can't have it both ways."
Hi Mo, go read the column and remember where you heard it first. Criminalizing abortion prior to a certain point in the pregnancy can only be accomplished by changing the status of women
An I still don't get it. The article Steve blogged on was about the possibilities of reducing abortion by tweaking social policies, often in a way that would improve the lives of everyone. That concept seems to be beyond the grasp of most everyone here. Is reducing women to property and throwing folks in jail all that attractive?
Posted by: alan aronson | July 30, 2007 at 02:49 PM