Want to argue about abortion in a persuasive way? In this episode, Trent offers a sneak peek of his upcoming course at the Catholic Answers School of Apologetics called “Arguing Against Abortion.”
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent Podcast. A production of Catholic Answers.
Now that the podcast is available on YouTube, I have enjoyed shattering people’s expectations of me. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent Podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker, Trent Horn. I was reading a comment the other day. I forget if I was on Catholic Answers live or if it was an episode of the podcast that’s now available on YouTube, and this guy said, “I always thought that when you recorded a podcast, you were wearing a suit and tie.” I have not worn a necktie in years. I absolutely hate neckties. I’m not sure when it started. I feel like it started about 10 years ago that guys could go to formal events and they didn’t have to wear ties. You could have just the suit jacket and shirt, but I cannot remember the last time I wore a tie. I refuse to wear them. They’re so uncomfortable. Unless I’m at a super fancy-schmancy event where it’s actual black tie will I wear a black tie. Even there, I like to have fun and I just wear a bow tie.
I started to really enjoy the bow tie when I worked at Harkins Movie Theaters. If you’ve never been, and I think they changed the uniform up since I worked there 20 years ago, but when I worked at Harkins, you had suspenders with flare. Is that acceptable flare? Enough flare? The bare minimum? And it had a blue cummerbund and a blue bow tie. No, I don’t enjoy dressing up super fancy in general. Absolutely no to neck ties unless somebody says, “You’re fired if you don’t wear one.” But otherwise, when I’m filming or doing things, I’m not going to put on a full business suit. I know some people like to do that, it’s just not my style. Today, of course, I’m recording for the podcast, you on YouTube can see I’m busting out my Super Mario shirt. In fact, I’ve actually been playing Super Mario with my kids and they’re starting to get good. I’m excited to see the future for them.
Speaking of the future, what I want to share with you today are excerpts of one of my new courses at the Catholic Answers School of Apologetics. The School of Apologetics is something that really the founder of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, had been wanting to do for years, but we didn’t have the set up, we didn’t have all the details right to accomplish Karl’s vision until a few years ago. Now, what we’ve done is we’ve gotten together and we’re putting forward full length courses on apologetics, because here’s the thing, there’s very few schools or Catholic universities that have courses on apologetics. One of the few would probably be Holy Apostles College and Seminary, where I’m actually an adjunct professor of apologetics there. But for people like myself or Jimmy Akin or Tim Staples, we learned apologetics just on our own independent study, just reading a bunch of books, reading, reading, reading, going on the internet, and compiling our knowledge from that.
So we want to help people to be better at explaining and defending their faith and we want to help you guys get around the path that we had to do, just put it all together for you. That’s why we have the School of Apologetics. It’s schoolofapologetics.com. The very first course is offered by Jimmy Akin, Beginner’s Apologetics. And Jimmy is just the man. I have learned so much from him. I’m also doing a few courses there as well. I have Evidence for Catholic Morality, Creation Out of Nothing. I have another course coming up soon, Evidence For the Existence of God. This course though that I want to share with you today that will be up within the next week or two is, Arguing Against Abortion. It’s a course I’m really excited about because people always ask me, “How do I talk about abortion? How do I talk to pro-choice people like you do on the radio?” That’s my goal, is I can’t go out and have all the conversations with people. I want to be a multiplier.
I want people to learn here is how, this is the method you can use to have gracious, persuasive conversations on the issue of abortion. And so I think the whole course is about 30 lessons long. I’m going to share two of the lessons with you today in this podcast episode. But I’m just excited for them. It has my entire method all laid out. We filmed it in a beautiful studio up in Oceanside, California. And this is just the beginning. We’re going to be doing more courses like this because the goal always is, you know in the Gospels where Jesus saw the crowds? It said, “Jesus was sad because, he said, “the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.” I see out there so many people who want to understand the Catholic faith or who attack it and don’t understand the weaknesses of their arguments, and I don’t see enough people out there graciously engaging those who disagree. They either feel like they don’t know enough, and so they don’t want to engage, or they want to go out there machine guns blazing.
In fact, actually in a few weeks, I’m thinking of doing a podcast episode called, What’s Wrong With Catholic Apologetics? Because I’ve noticed a pushback a little bit against apologetics in some quarters online. They either don’t want to engage or they just come out there like, “I’m right, you’re wrong,” Matilda style, “I’m big, you’re small. I’m smart, you’re dumb,” and they just want to blow away the arguments. But guess what? As the venerable Fulton Sheen said, “You can win an argument and lose the person.” You can win an argument and lose the person. I want to win arguments and win people. That’s the goal of these courses at schoolofapologetics.com. Go and check it out, especially my new course, Arguing Against Abortion. Now, without further ado, here is a sneak peek of two of the lessons from that course.
Protestant apologists Greg Koukl writes in his book, Precious Unborn Human Persons, “If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.” Koukl uses a story to illustrate the point that we can’t answer the question, “Can I kill this?” unless we know the answer to the prior question, “What is this?” I usually paraphrase Koukl’s story in this way. Imagine you’re at the kitchen sink, washing the dishes. Your five year old runs up behind you and says, “Mommy, or daddy, can I kill this?” What’s the first question you will ask? Probably, “What is it?” After all, if it’s a cockroach, then it’s time to get out a can of Raid. If it’s a cat, some people who resent cats may waver on the answer, but most of us would say the answer is no. But what if it’s his two year old sister along with saying, “No,” you’d better call a counselor.
We give different answers for each situation because the answer to the question, “Can I kill this?” depends almost entirely on the identity of the thing being killed. Every honest person involved in the abortion debate admits something is killed during an abortion. If it is mere tissue, then abortion is no more immoral than clipping a toenail. But if a human being with the right to life is killed, then abortion is immoral. If we fail to answer the question, what are the unborn, we will argue pointlessly about subjects that have nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong. In fact, you’ll notice that the following pro-life arguments are less effective because they ignore the question we always try to steer the conversation back to, what are the unborn? The first two focus on alternatives to abortion instead of the wrongness of abortion itself. For example, consider the claim. What about adoption?
Even if a woman lived in a country where adoption was not available or was illegal, this would not make it right to abort the child since we don’t support killing orphans no one wants to adopt. Moreover, some pro-life advocates suggest this alternative far too casually. One might give up a beloved sweater at a garage sale, but women don’t give up their babies to anyone. It’s more appropriate to say a woman places a child for adoption. Unfortunately, many women describe the experience of placing a child for adoption as a kind of death. Pregnancy resource centers routinely report that women fear adoption more than either abortion or raising their child themselves. Adoption is a good thing, but we should describe the choice to place a child for adoption as a heroic one and women will only consider this choice if they already believe that abortion is not a viable option because it involves killing a helpless child.
The same is true when it comes to suggesting a woman raise her child instead of choosing abortion. Once again, a woman, as well as the man who is often involved in this decision, won’t make the difficult choice to raise a child unless they are more repulsed by the choice to abort their child. Another less effective argument against abortion is relying solely on the claim that abortion hurts women. Now I’ve seen the devastating effects abortion has on women, as well as men who were involved in choosing abortion for their spouses. As an observer at post-abortive retreats, I have listened to women describe how abortions they had 50 years ago still cause them anguish and heartbreak. While I agree abortion can have serious consequences for the woman who has one, I don’t see how that fact justifies outlawing abortion. Alcohol and tobacco cause well-known health problems for millions of people, but those things are still legal.
Advocates of the woman centered approach may respond that abortion minded women can at least be deterred from choosing abortion by being shown evidence of abortion’s negative health effects. But proving abortion is on the whole worse for women than giving birth can be difficult and involves making sense of large amounts of complex medical research. The woman centered pro-life strategy is like arguing that killing civilians in war is wrong because it results in post traumatic stress disorder in soldiers. That’s a relevant fact, as well as indirect evidence that innocent human beings are being killed, but it’s not why killing civilians is wrong. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is an intrinsically evil act and the negative side effects such as post traumatic stress disorder flow from the act’s evil nature. This doesn’t mean I think the women centered approach has no place in the pro-life movement. I encourage women as well as men involved in these decisions to share their testimonies once they feel comfortable speaking publicly about their abortions.
These gripping stories add a personal element to the discussion that makes the arguments for the pro-life position more persuasive. Pope Saint John Paul the Second even said of post abortive women, “With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life.” The woman centered approach may not provide the complete case for why abortion should be outlawed, but it does provide a great opportunity to start a conversation about why women regret their abortions, namely, that they regret being accomplices to the death of their own children. If that is the reason women regret their abortions, then the case for outlawing the procedure becomes much stronger. Rather than make less effective arguments against abortion, pro-lifers must stay focused on the one question that matters most, what are the unborn?
As Greg Koukl’s dish washing story shows, if the unborn are not human beings, then getting an abortion is a little more serious than going to the dentist to have a tooth polled. Since we would not outlaw tooth extractions in order to reduce the number of them that occur, we should not outlaw abortion simply to reduce the number of abortions that occur, if that is the unborn are not human beings. But if the unborn are human beings, then abortion can’t be justified any more than killing a two year old could be justified. If we wouldn’t kill two year olds because they were unwanted, and if the unborn are as human as a two year old, then it follows that we should not kill unborn children, even if they are unwanted. Unfortunately, if you make this point in such a blunt way, opponents may feel lectured or judged, and ignore what you have to say. A more effective approach involves asking a series of questions that helps the person with whom you’re speaking come to this conclusion on his own.
In the next few lessons, we will see how to use that approach called Trot Out A Toddler to move the conversation away from irrelevant issues and back to the one question that matters most, what are the unborn? When most people are asked, why abortion should be legal, their first answer isn’t, because a fetus is not a human being. Instead, most pro-choice advocates bypass this issue and simply say abortion should be legal because women need abortion for some important reason. If you make abortion illegal, then what about women who are too poor to take care of a child? What about the children who will be abused? What about the right to choose? What about overpopulation? What about rape? It’s tempting to divert your attention away from the question, what are the unborn, and answer other questions like, is the world really overpopulated or are some women in America really too poor to raise a child? But you don’t want to do that. Instead, remember to focus on one question, what are the unborn?
At Justice For All, the pro-life advocacy organization I previously worked for, we called reasons for legal abortion that don’t answer the question, what are the unborn, off topic reasons. Whereas reasons for abortion that did answer the question, what are the unborn, we called them on topic reasons. Our goal in a conversation was to always move from off topic reasons to on topic reasons. Here, let’s try an exercise to help us distinguish between these reasons. I’ll offer a reason for legal abortion, you tell me if it’s on topic or off topic. A woman has a right to choose? It’s off topic. It doesn’t answer the question, what are the unborn? A fetus isn’t viable? On topic. It does answer the question. A fetus isn’t human? On topic. It’s false, but don’t confuse on topic with true or correct. On topic, just means that the reason answers the question, what are the unborn?
The world is overpopulated? Off topic. In order to get from off topic to on topic reasons we use a tool developed by Protestant pro-life activist, Scott Klusendorf called, Trot Out A Toddler. My favorite articulation of Trot Out A Toddler was created by my former JFA colleague, Steve Wagner, which he calls the four As. They are Agree, Apply, Ask Why, and Ah. Here’s how they work. Step one, Agree. Whenever possible, agree with the sentiments behind the reason being given to keep abortion legal. Some pro-life advocates think that agreeing to anything is a sign of weakness, but pro-choice advocates see it as a sign of compassion and understanding. For example, when poverty is mentioned, you can agree that caring for an impoverished child is difficult. When the right to choose is invoked, you can agree that women should be able to choose all sorts of things. Invoking many areas of agreement at the beginning of the conversation eases tension and makes it easier to discuss areas of disagreement.
But your agreement should not be merely used as a strategy to win the argument. Instead, we should genuinely show concern for the lives of both born and unborn people who are affected by an unintended pregnancy. Step two, Apply. Next, take the reason being given to justify abortion and use it to justify killing a two year old. This takes practice, and I recommend that when you describe the Trot Out A Toddler example, extend your hand about two or three feet off the ground as if you were touching the top of a two year old’s head. If you get stuck, remember that the Apply always starts the same way. Extend your hand and say, “Imagine I have a two year old here and his mother …” This works for almost any reason that does not answer the question, what are the unborn? For example, if someone says, “Poor women need abortion,” you might say, “Imagine I have a two year old here and his mother is poor and feels like she cannot care for him, should she be allowed to kill him?”
This may seem like an absurd question, but that is precisely the point. If unborn children are as human as toddlers then it should be just as absurd to ask the question, “Imagine I have a poor pregnant woman who feels like she cannot care for another child, should she be allowed to have an abortion?” The only difference is the age of the child who is being killed. After using the pro-choice advocates initial reason for abortion as a justification for killing a two year old, it’s important to resist the temptation to say, “Obviously it’s wrong for a woman to kill her two old, therefore abortion is wrong because the unborn is as human as a two year old.” We want them to come to that realization for themselves. That’s why, no matter how absurd it sounds, ask the person only if the reason women need legal abortion, whether it’s poverty, choice, women’s rights would also be a good reason to kill a two year old? Then be quiet. Just let the question hang in the air until the pro-choice advocate responds.
Step three, Ask Why. When they say it is wrong to kill the two year old, ask, “Why is it wrong?” You can even preface this question by saying, “I know this is a weird question, but humor me, why is it wrong for the woman to kill her two year old?” Sometimes the pro-choice advocate will answer, “Because it’s illegal.” You can then ask if killing two year olds should be illegal. If he says, “Yes,” ask, “Why do you think killing two year olds should be illegal?” If they say it’s because you can always place a two year old for adoption, ask if two year olds that aren’t being adopted, like those languishing in the foster care system, can be killed. Most people agree that killing a two year old is wrong because two year olds are innocent human beings and it is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
The pro-choice advocate may even anticipate where your questions are leading and say it is wrong to kill a two year old because he is a person or a born human, or he is breathing, or he is in some way different than an unborn child who we are allowed to kill. This is exactly where you want the conversation to go. Step four, Ah, that’s the issue. The last part of Trot Out A Toddler narrates the epiphany the pro-choice person should be having in relation to the pro-life position. In this step, the pro-life person responds to the answer to step three and says, “Ah, so that’s the issue. The issue is not about poverty or choice or age or health,” or whatever original reason was offered as to why abortion must remain legal, because you wouldn’t justify killing a two year old for that reason. If the unborn are just as human as a two year old, then we shouldn’t kill them for that reason either. You and I just disagree over whether unborn children should have the same rights born children possess.
Remember that Trot Out A Toddler does not constitute the entire pro-life position. Its goal is to just get us talking about the one question that matters most in the abortion debate, what are the unborn? Hey, guys, thank you so much for watching. Be sure to go to schoolofapologetics.com to check out more of the great content that we have there. This course will be available, if not now, at least within a few weeks called Arguing Against Abortion. Otherwise, you can go and check out my other courses, Evidence For Catholic Morality, Creation Out Of Nothing, my upcoming course, Evidence For God. All of that at schoolofapologetics.com. And don’t forget to support us at trenthornpodcast.com. Thank you guys so much, and I hope you have a very blessed day.
If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information visit trenthornpodcast.com.