Attitude Can Make or Break the Conversation

Recently, veteran JFA trainer Rebecca Hotovy found an unsent email in her drafts folder. It contained a nearly complete newsletter detailing a conversation from years back. I was so taken with it, I wanted to share it with you. (Rebecca still coaches other JFA speakers part-time during brief breaks from her full-time job as mom to two precious boys.)

We know this story definitely happened at the University of Oklahoma, and we think it happened around 2015. Whatever the date, the story beautifully illustrates the power of JFA’s dialogue approach, the power of a few carefully crafted questions asked with an open heart, and the way in which our attitude has the power to make or break a conversation. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

---

Impact Report, June 2022

Rebecca Hotovy, JFA Trainer Certification Coach and Trainer Emeritus

 Several years ago at the University of Oklahoma (OU), as I stood next to the large exhibit, a young man approached me. I’ll call him Chris. Confident that abortion was a woman’s right, Chris started to explain why he felt abortion should remain legal. Several feet from me stood another man, likely twenty to thirty years older than Chris. Although this older man was not a volunteer with Justice For All, he held a pro-life view. He was close enough to hear my conversation with Chris, and as the conversation continued, he listened in.

View fullsize

Rebecca (center) interacts with an OU student in 2015 near a small version of the JFA Exhibit.

In the first few minutes of that discussion, I took time to figure out the reasoning behind Chris’s belief that abortion should remain legal. Without first understanding why Chris held his view or how he came to the conclusion that abortion should remain legal, I knew I wouldn’t be able help him see errors in his reasoning. I was also aware that blatantly pointing out any errors may upset him enough that he would end the conversation. If he didn’t end the conversation but he stayed and continued talking, it would likely make him put up barriers of self-defense that would prevent him from wanting to listen to the ideas being presented, even if he was physically present and talking. Sadly, I’ve seen this happen many times – two people begin to dialogue about a controversial subject, quickly start defending their own positions, and turn a conversation into two monologues because they feel offended. If they feel offended for whatever reason, they may hear words coming from the other person’s mouth, but they don’t listen to the meaning of the message of those words.

In my conversation with Chris, over time it became clear that he did not believe the unborn was biologically human. When I felt I had built a good rapport with him, I allowed our conversation to take a turn. I started asking questions not just to discover his reasoning in defense of legal abortion but also to challenge that reasoning. At this point in the conversation I knew he would welcome the challenge because he could see that I didn’t desire to push my agenda down his throat. The challenge questions I asked were exactly the ones we train participants to ask when they attend the Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue seminar. I said something like:

Rebecca: Chris, do you mean that you don’t believe the unborn is biologically a human being or that the unborn isn’t a human being that deserves the same rights as you and I do?

Chris: Oh, it’s not biologically a human being at all. It’s just a clump of cells in those early stages.

Rebecca: If I could offer evidence for why the unborn is a human being, would you mind?

Chris: Sure. Go ahead.

Rebecca: If the unborn is growing, isn’t it alive?

Chris: [pausing and then slowly nodding his head] Yeah, sure I can agree with that.

Rebecca: If the unborn has human parents, isn’t it human?

Chris: [pausing and pondering the question with a slight grin on his face] Yes.

It was his answer to my third question, though, that threw me for a loop.

Rebecca: And living human beings, like you and me, are valuable, aren’t they?

Chris: Oh my gosh. Yes.

There was another moment of silence as he continued to ponder the questions I had just asked that laid out a defense for the humanity of the unborn. We stood in silence for a while longer. Then he said something like:

Chris: Wow, okay, so I need to think through this more.

This was so unexpected to me because most students I talk to do not agree with each of these questions. They have all sorts of creative ideas to share, such as “Well, fire grows, and it’s not alive” or “Yeah, well a clump of cells might be alive and have human DNA, but that doesn’t mean it is a human being...Are tumors human beings?” or “Sperm are alive and have human DNA. Are all sperm valuable, too?”

Chris didn’t have any retorts like these. He simply agreed that the unborn was a human being.

Just as I thought the conversation was going really well, it took a turn for the worse. The pro-life man who had been listening in stepped close enough to us to join the conversation, turned to Chris, and snootily remarked, “She got ya! Didn’t she‽”

My heart dropped to my stomach. I had taken such care not to make Chris feel like I was attacking his position and to make him feel comfortable sharing his thoughts with me, and in less than three seconds someone who claimed to be pro-life obliterated all my efforts. Chris was as shocked as I was. His face showed it. He also became really nervous and started stumbling over his words.

One would think that I would easily become frustrated with people who hold beliefs against the dignity and sanctity of human life, but in this instance I became frustrated instead with this person who was like-minded to me in certain ways but didn’t realize the importance of treating the human standing in front of us with respect. Fortunately, I was able to jump back into the conversation, regain a good rapport with Chris, direct the conversation away from the “got ya” remark, and help him feel less nervous.

In hindsight, I now take another step back and realize that the art of learning to dialogue is a journey for everyone – the pro-life advocate and the pro-choice advocate alike. Prior to my training and work with Justice For All, if I had been that pro-life person standing there listening in on the conversation, I may have made a similar remark. Early on I didn’t understand that the way I shared the truth about the unborn could actually affect whether that truth helped pro-choice advocates change their minds. Thank you, Justice For All, for your gift of teaching me the beauty of dialoguing in love!

Note: Yes, that’s an intentional interrobang in the fourth from the last paragraph. Learn more about this controversial punctuation mark through this engaging podcast episode from 99 Percent Invisible.

Grant and the Gospel

“I don’t understand why I need to role-play,” Grant announced as I took my seat at the table.

About a year ago, my team and I traveled to San Antonio to facilitate a seminar for the pro-life club at University of Texas at San Antonio. During the last section of the seminar, we invited the participants to role-play a conversation on the topic of abortion with a JFA staff member.

It was at this point that Grant let me know he did not see any value in this exercise. I saw this as an opportunity to impart understanding. He informed me, “I will never have a conversation on this issue.” I encouraged him that it is important to be prepared to articulate his personal beliefs if someone asks him about abortion.

Grant then went on to share that he did not know where he stood on the issue of abortion. He had never thought about it prior to that day. The training material we presented was foreign information to him, including the images of the unborn in the different developmental stages. Grant also explained that he is not a confrontational person at all. If he is ever in a conversation where he disagrees with the other person, he stays quiet for fear that someone might ridicule him or make fun of his position.

I now began to understand where he was coming from. I naturally assume that most people who attend our seminars are pro-life. That is not always the case. As we talked that day, Grant did conclude that abortion is wrong.

Our conversation continued.

Andrea: I know you mentioned earlier that you have not thought through your position on the topic of abortion. You had a lot of information presented to you today. Since we agree that abortion is wrong, could we also agree that we need to stand up for the unborn? It would be as if your neighbor were abusing his child. Would you do something about it? Would you try to protect this child by calling social services?

Grant: Yes, of course.

Andrea: If someone came onto this campus and started shooting his gun, would you do what you could to stop the violence?

Grant: Yes, I would at least run for my life. I would also try to warn others and call the police.

Andrea: Exactly. Let’s imagine that your neighbor’s house was on fire at three in the morning. You would not think, “I do not want to offend my neighbor at this time of night.” No, you would warn your neighbor of the fire and do whatever it takes to get everyone out to safety. It’s the same with the unborn. I believe we should do what we can to stop this injustice.

Grant: That makes sense. I see where you are coming from.

We continued conversing on the topic for a few more minutes. For the most part, I asked questions and let him share his thoughts.

Andrea at UTSA Feb. 2022

He told me of his upbringing, how he was in foster care for three months and then adopted.

At this point, I knew role-playing a conversation was not what he needed. Grant had already sat through a four hour seminar.

I shifted our conversation to spiritual matters, and discovered he is currently searching. We had an extensive discussion in which I was able to share the hope of the gospel with him. He was actively engaged and seemed to be greatly impacted by our conversation.

Grant concluded, “I think it’s great to have conversations like this one. It is okay to disagree about certain topics, but still respectfully hear each other out. When I talk to my friends about issues that we may disagree on, they think we should just be done talking altogether. That is not how it should be. In our conversation, we had different views on things, but because you listened to me, I felt like I could actually share my opinion.”

The heart of JFA is to ask questions, listen, and find common ground whenever possible in every conversation. This approach can have a powerful impact in any conversation, not just when conversing about abortion. “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” (Theodore Roosevelt) We should never assume we know what someone believes. We must ask questions and listen, showing that we care about them. The impact can be profound. Even though Grant had different views than I do, he still felt like he could share his thoughts, and as a result was more open to listening.

Please join me in praying that God will continue to work in Grant’s life. Please also pray for us as we continue to talk to people like Grant.

Two Buckets, Take 2

In our team debriefs recently, a number of our younger staff members have been remarking about a tool they picked up from Tammy Cook, who has been working at JFA since 1996. Tammy originally described her “Two Buckets” analogy in our September 2017 Impact Report (I encourage you to go back and read that story above). This Impact Report features a second “Two Buckets” installment from Tammy. She details a conversation that happened at Wichita State University in August, along with a summary of the impact of all of her conversations at that outreach event. - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Impact Report, April 2022

By Tammy Cook, JFA Training Specialist

Tammy interacts with a student at Wichita State University in August 2021.

What a privilege it was to be back on the Wichita State University (WSU) campus on August 30 and 31 with the JFA team! I was excited to once again dialogue with college students face to face after a 17-month wait. I was ready to meet the challenge of helping them think through their views on abortion, and I prayed to see hearts and minds changed.

I introduced my Two Buckets analogy in 2017. It continues to be a very useful approach with pro-choice students that say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t tell others what to do.” I’m thrilled to share the impact that this analogy had on a WSU student named James.

James didn’t identify as pro-life or pro-choice. He said, “I’m in the middle.” I asked several questions to help him think through his views. I discovered that he believed that we become human at fertilization and that the unborn are human like us. He also agreed that the unborn deserved to be treated equally to born people and should be protected.

I then asked, “If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?” He thought long and hard and said, “I can still see both sides of the issue. I believe strongly in freedom of choice. I just don’t think I can take someone else’s rights away.” I shared my Two Buckets story to help him dig deeper into his thinking.

Tammy: Imagine that I have two buckets. The first bucket contains choices like murder, rape, stealing, and molestation. Do you agree that these choices are wrong and should not be legal?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The second bucket contains personal choices—for example, a favorite food like strawberries, choosing to go to college or not, dying your hair blue, etc. Do you agree that everyone should have the freedom to make these personal choices that do not harm others?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The significant difference between each of the two buckets is that one contains choices that harm people and the other bucket contains choices that do not harm people.

View fullsize

Two Buckets (Illustration by Joanna Bai)

James: That makes a lot of sense. Many people think pro-life people want to take rights away, but I can see now that you’re actually wanting to add rights to people— to let them have plenty of rights as long as it doesn’t harm another human being...

I smiled and nodded in agreement.

James: What about rape? That’s a really tough situation.

Tammy: I agree.

I spent some time empathizing with women who’ve been raped and stated that we should punish rapists more fully. He agreed, and I continued:

Tammy: There are most likely students walking on this campus that were conceived from rape. Do you think they are any less valuable than those students who were not conceived in rape?

James: No.

I could see that this was a lightbulb moment for him.

Tammy: So, in which bucket does abortion belong?

James: [after a short pause] Abortion belongs in the bucket with murder.

I again nodded in agreement. We smiled at each other. Then I returned to my earlier question:

Tammy: If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?

James: I’d definitely vote no!

This was such a great moment. I paused to thank God for using me as an instrument to help James have a change of heart so significant that he is now willing even to vote to protect the unborn.

---

Summary of My WSU Event Conversations

Tammy Cook

I saw God working in the hearts of many people. I had conversations with ten students over the course of two days at WSU (see one in the photo above). Here’s how I would categorize the students after asking a few questions to assess their views:

BEFORE: Undecided: 2 Pro-Choice: 5 Pro-Life: 3

I saw a complete shift in thinking by the end of the conversations with the two undecided students and two of the pro-choice students. All four said they would vote to make abortion illegal. I used the Two Buckets analogy in most of these conversations, and I believe it was integral in helping several of them, if not all, rethink their views.

AFTER: Undecided: 0 Pro-Choice: 3 Pro-Life: 7

---

Note: This story was originally published in Tammy Cook’s September 2021 newsletter. You can read and share both this and the first “Two Buckets” story using the following webpage: www.jfaweb.org/two-buckets.

One Central Question Helps Change a Mind

After serving at JFA for almost a decade, my sister Joanna Bai is moving on from her JFA work to focus completely on her growing family (she is due to give birth to another baby in March). Jon Wagner and I consider it a great gift and privilege to have been allowed to serve alongside our dear sister at JFA for so many years. The rest of the JFA team has expressed similar sentiments.

In this Impact Report we are featuring a conversation story Joanna shared in her March 2013 newsletter both because of the impact within the story itself, but also because it illustrates Joanna’s compelling teaching, her heart for mentoring, and her beautiful, clear writing – just a few of the many ways Joanna has impacted JFA’s team and mission. Please join us in thanking God for Joanna and enjoy with us this look back at His work through her. Thank you, Joanna! We will miss working with you! - Steve Wagner, Executive Director

Impact Report, March 2022

She started out defending abortion because of the plight of those in poverty. In just minutes, she said, “We really need to resolve the question of what the unborn is.” From there, I was able to help her find an answer. What caused the change?

I noticed “Jamie,” a confident young student at the University of North Texas, when she rode her bike up to the edge of the Justice For All Exhibit [Nov. 2012*]. It took me a few moments to decide if I would approach her. I’m so glad I did.

View fullsize

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

View fullsize

Joanna (right) interacts with a student at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

I asked Jamie what she thought about abortion. She told me openly, “Well, don’t get me wrong, I don’t like abortion. It just seems like difficult circumstances make it necessary. I’d say I’m pro-choice.”

“What sorts of circumstances are you concerned about the most?” I asked. She replied, “There are so many things. What about poverty? How can we force women who have no money and no resources to have kids? And how can we force those kids into such horrible lives?”

Jamie was raising an important point, but I knew that the fact of poverty itself wouldn’t help us discover whether abortion is a good solution to poverty. The conversation that followed illustrated perfectly one of the things we teach JFA volunteers: With abortion, there’s one central question we need to answer before moving on to other questions. I follow four steps to help people discover for themselves how central this question is. We call this process Trot Out a Toddler.*

Step 1: AGREE where possible.

Joanna: Jamie, I agree with you that many women have so little money and so few resources that it is difficult for them to be mothers. We need to be more concerned about those in poverty.

Step 2: APPLY the situation to a two-year-old.

Joanna: But Jamie, imagine a woman who is living in extreme poverty and who absolutely cannot rear a child. She doesn’t even have enough money to feed herself. Imagine that this woman has a two-year-old. Should she be able to kill that two-year-old because their lives are so difficult?

Jamie: Of course not. She cannot kill a two-year-old!

Joanna: I agree. Of course she cannot kill her two-year-old. And I know that question sounds a little odd on its face...

View fullsize

Joanna (left) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

View fullsize

Joanna (right) interacts with students at Arizona State in February 2013. Image: Cheryl Caffarella Wilson

Step 3: ASK WHY the mother cannot kill the two-year-old.

Joanna: ...but let me ask you this: Why is it not okay to kill the two-year-old?

Jamie: Well, it’s not okay to kill the two-year-old because the two-year-old is a human being.

Step 4: AH! (The light-bulb moment: Discovering the central question, “What is the unborn?”)

Joanna: I agree. So it sounds like we don’t need to resolve the question of whether poverty matters. We agree that it certainly does. Rather, the question we need to resolve is, ‘What is the unborn?’ If the unborn is human like the two-year-old, then we can’t kill the unborn even because of poverty, right?

Jamie looked at me and I could tell she was thinking hard. She replied,

Jamie: That makes a lot of sense. I don’t know that much about when we become human, but it seems like that is the question we have to answer.

Most people will agree that abortion kills something, but whether or not we can kill a living thing depends first on what it is. Some pro-choice arguments address this question, “What is it?” and argue that the unborn is not a valuable human being. But others, like Jamie’s, ignore the unborn completely. Although arguments like hers raise important concerns, they assume that the unborn is not valuable. The four-step Trot Out a Toddler process helped Jamie realize that she needed to focus on the central question, “What is the unborn?”

Jamie and I continued our conversation for a few more minutes, discussing the evidence for the biological humanity of the unborn. We also discussed why we can have confidence that the unborn human has the same basic human rights that you and I have. Toward the end of the conversation, I was excited to see the progress we had made:

Jamie: You know, a lot of my friends are the ones protesting over there. [A number of pro-choice students had gathered with drums and signs to protest during the outreach.] But, I actually grew up in a Christian home, and my parents are pro-life. I don’t see eye to eye with my parents about a lot of things – for instance, I’m a lesbian – but I think I can agree with them about this issue. I think I can call myself pro-life now. I thought, by the way my friends talked, that you all were gonna shove anti-gay, anti-woman rhetoric at me. But I actually enjoyed this conversation. I really appreciate the way you all are creating dialogue.

I thanked her, and then she said something I’ll never forget:

Jamie: I have a lot of friends who have had abortions. And Joanna, you can see the change in them after the procedure. They carry an undeniable emptiness, as if they’ve truly lost a person.

And with that, she had to go to class.

Jamie’s barriers to being against abortion had been mainly social and cultural. She didn’t want to be identified with certain politically conservative views or certain “pro-life” people. The Trot Out a Toddler process was essential in our conversation because it helped her focus on the central question “What is the unborn?” Although this tool didn’t make the pro-life case for me, it helped Jamie and I agree about the question we needed to answer. It was just a short step from that point of agreement to Jamie’s moment of realizing that abortion is wrong because it kills a valuable human being.

* This story originally appeared in Joanna Bai’s March 2013 newsletter. See the links below to read other letters from Joanna. We owe the memorable phrase “Trot Out the Toddler” to Scott Klusendorf (prolifetraining.com) and the concept of “one central question” to Greg Koukl (str.org).

---

Joanna Bai: Selected Newsletters

Want to Make a Moral Impact? Help People Stop and Engage.

View fullsize

As our team joined me in Washington, DC last month for the March for Life and the National Pro-Life Summit conference, we were looking for ways to make a moral impact rather than to make just a moral statement (see my January letter for more on this).

At the march, we decided to join the masses with hand-made signs. At the last minute, I decided to pull JFA’s “Hope of Change” exhibit sign from the van. The sign features a Margot Rogers image of the unborn adorned with the same art style as Obama’s iconic campaign signs. We debated whether we would regret carrying the 2x4 foot sign around DC, but just after we settled ourselves on the lawn near the Washington monument, an AP Wire reporter approached wanting to know what the sign was about. The sign had done its job: it caused the viewer to stop and engage. (See pictures from the march at JFA’s Instagram page).

View fullsize

After the march, the main work of the day began: we boarded the metro to head to the offices of the Leadership Institute about 15 minutes outside the city. There we presented an interactive dialogue workshop to students from Colorado Christian University along with various others we had invited – about 50 in total. Why did we make this event interactive, featuring a heavy dose of role-play practice? We wanted these participants to stop being mere spectators of abortion discussions and instead engage those around them. So, we used the same emphasis in the workshop itself: we expected participants to engage with what we were teaching by practicing it themselves right there and then.

The same concern animated our team the next day at the National Pro-Life Summit hosted by Students for Life of America (SFLA). We were in the exhibitor hall where participants in the conference might walk by our table only once during the day. How could we help them stop and engage with the need to be trained to dialogue?

View fullsize

View fullsize

See more images on Instagram.

We decided that what stops pro-life advocates in a conference is probably not much different than what stops pro-choice advocates during our outreach events. On campus our poll tables and free speech boards are our most dependable tools that cause people to stop and engage, especially when coupled with an exhibit that challenges the status quo on abortion. (See JFA’s Instagram page for pictures from our February events at three Texas universities: UTSA, Texas State, and Tarleton State.) At this conference filled with passionate pro-life advocates, then, we decided to create special free speech boards with big questions to help these particular passersby stop and engage. It worked beautifully, as you can see from the conference pictures. We had a steady stream of conversations throughout the day about the need for training in dialogue.

Please pray for our upcoming seminar, workshop, and outreach events, that each will help pro-life advocates to stop and engage in learning to dialogue so that they can help pro-choice advocates to stop and engage in rethinking their positions on abortion.

How can you use this concept in your own life to help those around you stop and engage? I suggest sharing a picture of a free speech board from the conference with a pro-life friend, and ask, “How would you answer the question JFA asked on this conference free speech board?”

---

Recent and Upcoming Events

1/21 March for Life & Workshop (Washington, DC)

1/22 National Pro-Life Summit (Hosted by SFLA)

1/30-31 Workshops in Denton & Stephenville (TX)

2/1-2 Outreach at Tarleton State (Stephenville, TX)

2/13 Seminars (San Marcos & San Antonio, TX)

2/14-17 Outreach at Texas State & UTSA (TX)

2/23 UNL Club Meeting Presentation (Lincoln, NE)

2/26-27 Seminars (Wichita, KS)

2/28-3/1 Outreach at Wichita State (KS)

2/28-3/3 Love3 Interactive Workshop (Online)

March-May Outreach Events in AZ, CO, CA, KS

5/2-5 Love3 Interactive Workshop (Online)

See the JFA Calendar for more events and details!

See Instagram for pictures of recent events!

---

Moral Statement or Moral Impact?

As I write this, seven members of the JFA team are heading towards airports to fly to Washington D.C. to participate with me in the March for Life (Friday, 1/21) and the National Pro-Life Summit (Saturday, 1/22). Since we’ll be marching in opposition to legal abortion, it makes sense that we’d reflect on a question I remember Greg Koukl (str.org) asking years ago that has always stuck with me: Do you want to make a moral statement or a moral impact?

The question is phrased in such a way that it could be seen as purely rhetorical: Obviously we want to make an impact. There isn’t much value to making a statement if in making it we fail to make an impact. Or worse, what if we make an impact contrary to the one we’re intending?

The question is not purely rhetorical, though, because many people are very satisfied with simply making a statement, and many have never reflected on how we might choose particular activities that are more likely to make an impact. Here’s how I reflect and respond:

Our team doesn’t march simply to make the appropriate statement against legal abortion. We are in DC to multiply our work of training a different kind of advocate to create a different kind of conversation that changes hearts and minds. Changing minds, after all, is essential to protecting unborn children in a democratic society, and protecting the unborn is the moral impact that all of the marchers long to see. Please pray with us, then, that through these events we’ll find and inspire potential interns who want to learn to train others, leaders who want us to train the people in their care, and individual pro-life activists who can make a greater impact with the tools we teach.

---

Recent Instagram Post

Recent and Upcoming Events

1/13 Workshop: Young Adults Group (Lincoln, NE)

1/15 Seminar: Homeschool Group (Lincoln, NE)

1/15 San Diego Walk for Life (San Diego, CA)

1/21 March for Life Activities (Washington, DC)

1/21 Workshop: Various Groups (Washington, DC)

1/22 National Pro-Life Summit (Hosted by SFLA)

1/30 Seminar (Denton, TX)

2/13 Seminar (Near San Marcos, TX)

2/14-15 Outreach at Texas State (San Marcos, TX)

See www.jfaweb.org/calendar for more events!

Expecting God's Unexpected

They expected God to send a conquering king, someone who would set things right between the nation of Israel and the Roman Empire. Jesus constantly turned people’s eyes to an unseen world of unseen rulers.

They expected a visible ruler. Jesus appeared invisibly as an embryo in Mary’s womb. Then he walked among them humbly, exercising undisputable wisdom and power not to secure a visible throne but to conquer unseen demons and to destroy lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God (see II Cor. 10:5).

They expected the Messiah to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, respected by everyone for his power. Jesus was lifted high...on a cross, hanged as criminal, disgusting to Jew and Gentile alike.

During Advent and Christmas we pause and re-live that first season of expectation, when the Messiah had not yet appeared. I’d like to suggest we also try to recapture that sense of what those in the first century were expecting. They had a narrative they had built, detailing the way God would be working “any day now.” They were sure of it. And then God moved, deliberately, decisively to do something utterly different.

JFA’s regular dialogue team after outreach at University of Oklahoma in October 2021: Paul Kulas, Tammy Cook, Jeremy Gorr, Rebekah Dyer, Kristina Massa, Kaitlyn Donihue, Mary St. Hilaire, Jon Wagner, Bella O’Neill, Andrea Thenhaus (Missing: Steve Wagner)

Click the image (or this link) to give a gift to JFA to support the work of these missionaries. Each (including Steve Wagner - see other picture) raises his or her support to be able to continue the work of changing hearts and minds on abortion and other important worldview topics.

Note: For a 2021 tax-deductible receipt, please give or postmark your gift by December 31, 2021.

It’s a sort of cautionary tale for us. Be careful of those things you expect with certainty. For God is at work, and his mind is many times quite different than our own.

Along with many others, I listened to the Supreme Court’s December 1 oral arguments on the Dobbs case. Dobbs concerns the Mississippi ban on abortion after 15 weeks which is causing the Supreme Court to consider overruling its landmark cases protecting legal abortion, Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). I reviewed the thoughts of various commentators before and after. Many expect the Court to overturn Roe and Casey. Many pro-life advocates are quivering with excitement about the potential that many states could then move forward with stronger restrictions against abortion.

Add to this the Supreme Court’s recent decision on Texas SB8, effectively allowing the law to continue to stand as it has since September 1, causing many Texas abortionists to cease doing abortions after a heartbeat is detected (at approximately six weeks from last menstrual period, or four weeks from fertilization – note that the heartbeat arises at about three weeks from fertilization but normally can’t be detected at that point). Many pro-life advocates in other states are monitoring the Texas situation and hoping to utilize the same type of law to curtail many abortions in their own states.

To be sure, even if the Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases result in the saving of one human being’s life, we will rejoice. Nothing I say in what follows is meant to take away from this.

Let’s remember the cautionary tale of the Messiah expected and the Messiah come: be careful of those visible outcomes you expect with certainty.

It is the same with these Supreme Court cases. Be careful of the visible outcomes you expect with certainty. Sure, the words of some commentators could turn out to be wise, even prophetic. Roe and Casey may be on their way out. The Texas law may survive other challenges and prove to be an effective strategy to stop abortions. These things may all be true. But God – God may be moving in spite of expectations to bring about some other results we can’t even imagine.

We look back at our first century Jewish counterparts and caution them in retrospect to look not for what they had come to expect from their Messiah and God’s plan and the meaning of redemption. We caution them to instead “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (see Matt. 6:33). We caution them to “set their mind on the things of God and not on the things of man” (see Mark 8:31-33). We caution them to humbly pray for the strength to wait on the Lord, to know him more deeply, to do his will in this day, regardless of the visible outcomes he brings tomorrow. In short, we caution them to “walk by faith, not by sight” (see II Cor. 5:7).

In the same way, I encourage each of us to pray for the strength to seek to know God in this time, to be with him, even as we earnestly desire for all unborn children to be protected from violence. Our task is not to divine the decisions of the Supreme Court with a certainty we cannot reasonably have about the future; our task is to keep ourselves doing the things we know with certainty God has given us to do today.

The Gospel accounts and the Book of Acts tell the story vividly. Over and over again, the Jews were surprised by the way God was working out his plan. Perhaps we might even say that surprise is the dominant theme of those books.

I suspect that surprise will also continue to be the dominant theme of our work seeking justice for all. I don’t know what God will do with the law in 2022, but I am rather certain of one thing: He will surprise me.

So let us then keep our eyes fixed on God, earnestly seeking what he would have us do in this day. Let us earnestly seek to be with him in his work and to enjoy his decision to be with us in his Son, Immanuel, God with us.

With this in mind, our team is gearing up to keep doing in 2022 those things we believe God has uniquely gifted us to do. We will seek to change hearts and minds so that abortion is unthinkable, and so that love for women and children is kindled into thoughtful action that is unstoppable. We will train as many people as we can to create as many conversations as they can, in hopes of seeing God change the world in a way only he can.

Thank you for standing with us but also kneeling with us before the Father, as we tie all of our expectations and hopes to him and the surprising ways he is working in our midst.

Help JFA “Expect God’s Unexpected” in 2022

Thank you for your faithful support of Justice For All. There’s still time to give an end-of-year gift. Click the picture or click this link to donate or postmark your gift by December 31, 2021.

Pictured above is JFA’s outreach team during California events in November 2021: Andrea Thenhaus, Kaitlyn Donihue, Steve Wagner, Jon Wagner, Rebekah Dyer, Kristina Massa, Bella O’Neill

Please pray with us for every event and every conversation we create, looking with trusting expectation to see what results God is pleased to bring from them, even if he surprises us.

Merry Christmas!

Jesus Came in Weakness

Have you ever noticed that God often values different things than we do? As humans we tend to value strength, but so often God chooses weakness.

In the Old Testament, God chose weakness when he asked Gideon to send most of his troops home and fight with only a tiny minority of his army.

He chose weakness when He sent Elijah to ask for food from a poor widow (she only had enough food for one last meal) rather than to a wealthier individual.

In the New Testament, God chose weakness when He called fishermen and tax-collectors – the lowest of the low in society – to follow Him instead of calling the best and the brightest.

But more astounding than all of these stories, God chose weakness when He sent Jesus into the world. Jesus came into the world, not as an independent adult, not as a child, and not even as a baby. Jesus came into the world as an embryo. An embryo is weak. He is dependent. The God who created the universe and holds it together chose to enter His creation in the weakest and most dependent state possible.

That encourages me.

Our God is not looking for the best and the brightest. He is not seeking credentials. He chooses weakness. He chooses us.

Many of us feel like we can’t really be used by God. We are not talented or powerful enough. We don’t have a big audience or a lot of money. We look around and see other people whom we think God could really use – people with power, influence, talent, etc.

When we think this way, we are missing the point. God is not looking for talented, powerful people. He is looking for people who will trust Him to use them in their weaknesses and their inadequacies. God chooses weakness because in weakness, His strength is most clearly seen.

That is what Christmas is all about.

God came to earth in weakness in order to rescue those who are weak, you and me.

This year, as you celebrate Christmas, take time to be amazed afresh at the incredible reality that God came into the world in weakness to rescue us.

Changing Hearts Is Still Job One

As I write this, the Supreme Court is expected to issue an emergency ruling soon on the Texas law (SB8) that has successfully curtailed many abortions in the state. It will also hear oral arguments on December 1 on the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks (Dobbs). There is some reason for optimism, especially on Dobbs, but the view we’ve gotten from the field is that our most important challenge remains a constant: many people, inside communities of Christians and outside, simply don’t have a strong love for unborn children and their mothers. It’s that love that drives the JFA team to work to protect both from abortion.

So changing hearts remains Job One. In this Impact Report, we share reflections from participants who found that love and the tools to express it through our training program. We also share pictures of conversations created at recent outreach events. To read some of the amazing stories of changed hearts from the past few months, click the links towards the end of this post.

I am coming to realize just how important it is to reach out to people who are thinking of having an abortion. I used to think that I could not make much of a difference, so why even try? But I have come to realize that saving even one life is worth going out and talking to these women, even though it is outside of my comfort zone. – Abby

God’s really been teaching me how to love correctly lately. I get very passionate about abortion, so something God’s been teaching me today is how to take that passion he’s given me and give it back to him so he can use it through me. I’ve been doing it without a lot of love and I’ve felt convicted of that. – Lydia

You have met a concern I didn’t know how to express: it bothered me when Christians just made intellectual arguments and neglected the life of the mother and all the other difficult aspects of this situation. I have never had a framework or seen an example of this being done in love before. I feel like I have the resources now to take a stand against something that is wrong while demonstrating love and showing care. I LOVE the scripts and additional resources. You made this hands on and practical/tangible. I was so thankful for this training! I feel equipped and encouraged and even excited! – Allison

Thank you for making my voice usable. – Rachel

This opened my eyes to the abortion dialogue. It was always a topic of conversation [to which] I would just say “Amen, that’s wrong.” Now I have the tools to actually do something. Your emphasis [on] the “relational” helps me shift this from a debate to an opportunity to love and share the gospel of Jesus Christ. – Eli

Very well articulated. I have been through [similar] seminars, and this did a great job at solidifying this topic into my brain and rekindling the fire in my heart towards this subject. – Garrett

This was super helpful, and not just philosophically, but ... practically. This has been such a great reminder that it’s not only about the unborn, but also about the person standing in front of us, and that we’re called as Christians to love both. – Annie

I used to look at the topic of abortion as a big rock that I could not move. Now I learned that I can now slowly chip away at it. – Mariah

Second Thoughts

You know when you have a thought that enters your mind immediately upon hearing something or seeing someone, and you think, “Wow, I’m not sure why I thought that. That was a bizarre thought. I don’t appreciate that that came into my mind.” Follow me here. I call this a First Thought.

That internal questioning that says, “Hmm, why did I think that?” is one example of a Second Thought. This is a fundamental aspect of maturing as a person.

We’re all taught things, raised with ideas. Some of those ideas are beautiful and good and shape us to be stronger when challenged. Good ideas like trusting God first and looking before you cross the street can become instinctual First Thoughts if they’re ingrained early enough. Other first thoughts, however, are toxic. An example would be a thought of judging someone’s actions without discernment. Another example would be rude thoughts without consideration. Some forms of racism and sexism come from this First Thought category. Somewhere along the way, we absorb the belief that those clothes are “ugly” or that hairstyle is “awful.” These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes these First Thoughts are insidious, causing harm to our psyche or resulting in harm to others when acted on.

When I first began doing pro-life work, I judged women who had abortions as murderers – evil women who wanted to kill children. After speaking to women who had unexpected pregnancies, challenging life circumstances, or who had actually sought out abortions, the Second Thoughts started to emerge. When I judged someone “without thinking,” I addressed that thought: “I don’t want to think things like that automatically. I want to learn more about this person and have compassion.”

Without Second Thoughts, the mind runs about like a child in a grocery store: “Ew, Mom, what’s wrong with her face?” With maturing and conscious effort to address prejudice, the mind stands still and ponders, “I feel concern. Concern for many people: the unborn, the women, this person standing before me. How do I love them all and extend to them the heart of Jesus?”

This transformation of thought takes work. Making Second Thoughts into instinctual habit takes years of re-learning, exposure to uncomfortable ideas, abandoning our pride before the throne of God. I still have so many First Thoughts. As a new mom, some First Thoughts about parenting are rearing their ugly heads, and I need compassion from people around me as I learn to re-train my mind, turning judgment into discernment and care. The good news is that I (and you!) can work on developing the habit of Second Thoughts that counteract these First Thoughts, causing them to recede into the background, and hopefully causing them to pop up less and less as Second Thoughts take their place.

As a pro-life speaker, trainer, and conversationalist, Second Thoughts are my passion. If I want to have a good conversation with someone with whom I may have disagreements, I have to put aside judgmental thoughts first and say to myself, “On second thought, how can I love them first?”

I challenge you to do the same.

Interns in Action (Part 2)

Impact Report, October 2021

At JFA, our internships are an expression of our passion for nurturing young leaders, helping them create conversations that change hearts and minds and helping them learn to train others. In all of these activities, we emphasize dependence on God to bring the results He wishes to bring through our efforts.

In our Impact Report last month, interns Rose and Bella shared stories of conversations they had during August and September outreach events at Wichita State University.

In this Impact Report, interns Andrea and Kristina share a window into how this process of creating conversations has affected them personally, including deepening their trust in God at every moment. As you endeavor to make a difference in the lives of those God puts in your path, I hope these insights from Andrea and Kristina will also encourage you to trust God throughout each interaction.

---

Some of JFA’s interns come to us with very little conversation experience, just like many of our training participants. Because we place conversations and outreach front and center in the internship, interns quickly identify with our training participants’ normal fears and uncertainties, but our interns also gain insights they can share out of their personal experience with people they will be training. Interns Andrea and Kristina recently shared some of those insights:

Andrea Thenhaus: One of the most valuable skills I have learned is how to listen with an open heart yet also be able to share the truth in a conversation. I have gained a greater understanding of how to meet people in whatever circumstances they may be… I appreciate the mentoring that JFA provides. When out on campus I had a JFA member evaluate each conversation I had, which was especially helpful… I have been stretched in the Lord and grown in boldness. I have learned the importance of relying on the Lord to direct my conversations. Every conversation is an invitation to let the Holy Spirit step in and accomplish His work through me. I am thankful that the Lord is faithful to give me wisdom.

Kristina Massa: The scariest part about abortion dialogue is initiating the first conversation. Even after training and practice with Justice For All, the fears that accompanied asking strangers what they think about abortion continued to billow in my mind: What if they share an argument for which I’m not prepared? What if they yell at me? What if this is an emotional topic for them, and my question stirs up those emotions? The list of fears and lies the devil plants in our minds to prevent us from taking the first step can feel like it goes on forever, but the army of graces that God affords us to overcome those fears puts that list to shame.

With the support of the JFA team, I took a leap of faith in my first conversation at outreach. A young woman approached us to sign our poll which asked, “Should Abortion Remain Legal?” I initiated a conversation by asking her questions about her view. I was nervous, my demeanor was shaky, and I stumbled on my words. Any snarky person could have easily used my weakness to walk on me. To my surprise, the woman (who identified as pro-choice) was extremely gracious, and we found ourselves in a productive dialogue filled with lots of common ground. God used the woman’s temperament to compensate for what I was lacking. We may not have all of the right words or confidence we want in every conversation, but time and time again, God has demonstrated to me that He will provide the safe ground to land on as long as we take our leap of faith.

Two Buckets - Take Two

What a privilege it was to be back on the Wichita State University (WSU) campus on August 30 and 31 with the JFA team! I was excited to once again dialogue with college students face to face after a 17-month wait. I was ready to meet the challenge of helping them think through their views on abortion, and I prayed to see hearts and minds changed.

I introduced my Two Buckets analogy in 2017. It continues to be a very useful approach with pro-choice students that say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t tell others what to do.” I’m thrilled to share the impact that this analogy had on a WSU student named James.

James didn’t identify as pro-life or pro-choice. He said, “I’m in the middle.” I asked several questions to help him think through his views. I discovered that he believed that we become human at fertilization and that the unborn are human like us. He also agreed that the unborn deserved to be treated equally to born people and should be protected.

I then asked, “If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?” He thought long and hard and said, “I can still see both sides of the issue. I believe strongly in freedom of choice. I just don’t think I can take someone else’s rights away.” I shared my Two Buckets story to help him dig deeper into his thinking.

Tammy: Imagine that I have two buckets. The first bucket contains choices like murder, rape, stealing, and molestation. Do you agree that these choices are wrong and should not be legal?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The second bucket contains personal choices—for example, a favorite food like strawberries, choosing to go to college or not, dying your hair blue, etc. Do you agree that everyone should have the freedom to make these personal choices that do not harm others?

James: Yes.

Tammy: The significant difference between each of the two buckets is that one contains choices that harm people and the other bucket contains choices that do not harm people.

James: That makes a lot of sense. Many people think pro-life people want to take rights away, but I can see now that you’re actually wanting to add rights to people— to let them have plenty of rights as long as it doesn’t harm another human being...

I smiled and nodded in agreement.

James: What about rape? That’s a really tough situation.

Tammy: I agree.

I spent some time empathizing with women who’ve been raped and stated that we should punish rapists more fully. He agreed, and I continued:

Tammy: There are most likely students walking on this campus that were conceived from rape. Do you think they are any less valuable than those students who were not conceived in rape?

James. No.

I could see that this was a lightbulb moment for him.

Tammy: So, in which bucket does abortion belong?

James: [after a short pause] Abortion belongs in the bucket with murder.

I again nodded in agreement. We smiled at each other. Then I returned to my earlier question:

Tammy: If you were to vote tomorrow on whether or not to keep abortion legal, how would you vote?

James: I’d definitely vote no!

This was such a great moment. I paused to thank God for using me as an instrument to help James have a change of heart so significant that he is now willing even to vote to protect the unborn.

Thank you for your prayers! And thank you so much for your support that makes my work at Justice For All possible. May God bless you.

Note: Click here to read Tammy’s previous newsletter on this topic: “Two Buckets (Part 1).”

Interns in Action (Part 1)

View fullsize

Introducing our intern class for the fall of 2021: Andrea, Rose, Kristina, and Bella.

Since mid-August when JFA’s fall 2021 internship began, interns Andrea, Rose, Kristina, and Bella have spent many hours conducting outreach events and creating conversations to help people change their minds about abortion. This month, Rose and Bella share a window into their experiences in their own words:

Rose: At Wichita State University in August, “Natasha” seemed to be captivated by our sandwich boards on display. I greeted her and asked if she had time to talk about her thoughts on abortion. She smiled and eagerly said, “Yes please, I don’t usually have conversations about this topic.” She mentioned that she was “on the fence” about abortion, but that her mother was pro-life. She proceeded to share and tell stories about her mother’s pregnancies and abortions… we moved to sit down in the shade on a nearby bench… [and] the conversation shifted when we were on the same level sitting down together side by side.

She shared with me that she was minoring in Women’s Studies. I took an interest in that and started asking her questions about… what she was learning. It then turned into a conversation focused on motherhood and the lies the world tells women about what motherhood should look like. She shared with me that many of her friends that have gotten abortions view the situation as “the most tragic and regretful decisions they have ever made.” She also said that after having abortions, most of her friends have become pro-life rather than remaining pro-choice. This statement provided a glimpse of hope for me that women’s hearts and minds can and will be transformed after they have reflected upon and faced healing after abortion.

View fullsize

Rose (center in pink), Kristina (hat), and other JFA team members interact with Wichita State students at a JFA outreach event in late August.

She also mentioned some women in her life that have chosen to be mothers when all the odds seemed against them inspire her. We found common ground in viewing children as blessings rather than burdens, and that babies give women fuel and reasons to fulfill their dreams. At one point in the conversation, I mentioned the pro-life movie Unplanned. About five minutes later, her mother texted her a link to the movie. If that is not God communicating to me that I was talking to the right person at the right time, I don’t know what is. When we ended our conversation she said to me, “Thank you for taking the time to speak with me; you’ve solidified my pro-life views.” That was very rewarding to hear. I was very pleased that I could make a difference through a simple friendly conversation.

Bella: Before coming to JFA I thought I was loving the woman, but I really wasn’t. I would say I cared, but I didn’t understand how to care. I didn’t know how to open my eyes wide enough to take in the entire picture. I was scared that if I even for a moment glimpsed away from the unborn that I would somehow fail them. I didn’t know how to love the woman, have compassion for the person I was talking to, and still fight for the unborn. I realize now that I didn’t have compassion for the woman and the pro-choice advocate because I was still seeing the abortion issue as an Us v. Them, instead of an Us v. Injustice. Once my mindset shifted from seeing [pro-choice advocates] as the enemy, to seeing them as misinformed yet well-intentioned human beings hoping for justice and peace like me, the game changed. Now when I speak with someone who disagrees with me, I genuinely want to listen to them. Through this mindset I have had more fruitful (and surprisingly pleasant) conversations where a lot of progress has been made. I have learned that compassion is never wasted. It’s compassion that invokes us to listen and change…

Yesterday at outreach I was speaking to someone who didn’t have that strong of an opinion on abortion, but was pro-choice because he believed that women should be able to decide what to do with their lives. We walked through the biology and the Equal Rights argument, and he agreed with me all along the way. He then said something along the lines that the embryo just seems so far removed and hard to relate to, I agreed with him but [noted] that the way we look doesn’t define our value as humans. He agreed but then kind of shrugged and said, “That’s just the way society is; I don't know if I’d say it’s wrong—it’s socially acceptable…” I reminded him that at one point racism was socially acceptable and was the norm, but we now know that that was wrong despite the common opinion. He responded, “You are right, and I bet there were people that when they logically thought about it realized that it was wrong, and that’s why we are here today living in a nation that now understands racism is wrong. I guess we need to start educating people about abortion, helping people see what’s actually happening with abortion.” I was shocked that he had said that. I knew that his mind hadn’t completely changed, but he agreed that the divide here is a lack of familiarity and affection for the unborn. People are seeing the unborn as something they are not, so of course it is hard to see where we are coming from.

October 2021 Update: In Part 2, interns Kristina and Andrea share additional reflections.

Interns Kristina Massa (left), Rose Maddock (center), and Bella O’Neill (right) engage three students in conversation at Wichita State University.

Intern Andrea Thenhaus engages a student in conversation at Colorado Christian Universtiy.

Bella O’Neill in conversation at Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas

Krisitna Massa in conversation at Tarleton State University.

Rose Maddock engages two students in conversation at Wichita State University.

Rose Maddock (pink tank top) and Kristina Massa (hat) engage students in respectful conversations at Wichita State University in August.

Don't Follow the Leader

I hope that you had a wonderful Fourth of July celebration with your family!

This year, I went with a friend to watch fireworks. We had a lot of fun. When we got back to my car, I struggled a bit to figure out how to get out of the parking lot. There were tons of people and cars. Everything was a bit chaotic. All of the cars seemed to be going left, which seemed a little odd to me because I was sure there was no outlet in that direction. I am new to the area, and both my friend and I are directionally challenged, so we decided to just follow all of the other cars. Eventually we realized that there really wasn’t an outlet. Everyone had been going in the wrong direction. Finally, we got turned around and out of the parking lot. It is likely that one person thought there was an outlet and others just followed him. 

As I think about that experience, I am reminded of all the times throughout Scripture where Jesus refers to us as sheep. Sheep follow each other without really thinking. Human beings are much the same way. Whether it is something as silly as following a line of cars toward a non-existent exit, or something much more serious like following other’s belief systems about worldview questions, we are prone to follow without thinking.

I have a lot of sympathy for pro-choice people because I know that many of them are following the culture without questioning it. In fact, I am prone to the same mistake. If you think about it, this is actually encouraging because it means many pro-choice people are very persuadable. They are not pro-choice because they have thought about the issue and decided that being pro-choice makes the most sense. Instead, they are pro-choice because they are following the culture without stopping to question it. When we confront them with the truth, many of these people see their mistake and are willing to change their perspective.

The same is true of many non-Christians. They have not thought seriously about the claims of Christ. They have not taken time to study the various religions with an aim to discover the truth. Rather than thinking deeply about Christianity and then rejecting it, many people are simply going with the flow of our culture.

This is exciting. It means that our simple conversations can truly change people’s lives. When we engage people in conversations about abortion, worldviews, and the gospel, we may be helping them to think about these issues for the first time. They may not change their minds on the spot, but we have planted a seed that has the potential to one day bear fruit.

View fullsize

Earlier this month, the JFA team had the joy of training the students at Ellerslie Mission Society. I always love training at Ellerslie because I was first introduced to Justice For All there. It is fun to see everything come full-circle in this way.

Jack Changes His Mind...Three Times

Part 1: A Good Conversation Is a Mirror

One of my favorite conversations from my JFA work is my conversation with “Jack” from 2013. Recently I’ve been sharing it with audiences as an example of the kind of complete change of mind that can happen very quickly. I don’t mean to imply that most JFA conversations result in a conversion this dramatic, but the story does help us catch a glimpse of what is possible with any conversation. Let’s trust that God is working behind the scenes of every conversation, even if we don’t see results like this. -Steve Wagner, July 2021 Impact Report

It was a special treat. In many conversations, the person with whom I’m speaking doesn’t show a clear change of mind. I simply must trust God to work behind the scenes. In one conversation at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) in March 2013, though, I had the privilege of watching a young man I’ll call “Jack” change his mind...three times.

“Jack” (right) and Steve ponder pictures of human development and work to discover what explains our equal rights. (Photo by John Michener)

Jack had talked to someone at our outreach the previous day, so when I asked him where he drew the line on human rights, he was ready with an answer. “At eighteen weeks,” he said. Through a few minutes of clarifying questions from me, he stated that he believed the unborn was a human being biologically, but that the basic right to life began when brain processing was such that the unborn could respond to sound.

He had another reason to draw the line at about eighteen weeks, though: viability. Again, I asked a few questions to clarify what he meant, and he confirmed that he meant that when the unborn could survive outside the womb, even if she required technology, she would have the basic right to life.

“Doesn’t progress in technology move the point of viability earlier and earlier?” I asked.

“That’s a really good point,” Jack pondered. He and I agreed human rights could not be determined by a criterion that could be moved from year to year by technological advances. The first change of mind.

I then raised a problem for Jack to solve. “If all of us walking around the campus deserve equal treatment, we must have something the same about us that demands that we be treated equally. But what is the same about us?”

He had raised the possibility that “brain processing” was the thing that made the unborn valuable at about eighteen weeks. I asked if he meant brain processing itself. When he said, “Yes,” I pointed out that brain processing is something that comes in degrees – we can have more or less of it. Since it’s not something we all have equally, it cannot ground equal rights. He saw the problem.

I gave him another option, though. If he framed his explanation for equal rights as “that we have brain processing at all” then it would be an all-or-nothing property that could potentially ground equal human rights. It was true that all of the adults whose rights we were discussing in the vicinity of the outreach at UTSA did have the property of “having brain processing at all,” and they had that property equally. If Jack was right that this adjusted criterion was the reason for basic rights, then that would account for the equal rights of adults, and it would account for the fact that infants also share those equal rights. In fact, the basic right to life would then extend into the womb to approximately the point he had picked, at eighteen weeks.

I pointed out, though, that this would present an additional problem: then many animals, such as dogs, would also have equal rights to the rest of us, because they also have the property of “having brain processing at all.” Jack made a predictable move at this point and added two additional criteria. “You don’t just have to have ‘brain processing at all’ to have equal rights. You also have to be viable and human.”

I asked him if he could give me an independent reason to believe that value should be based on these three things in combination. I was looking for an independent reason other than “It saves my view that the unborn should only be protected after eighteen weeks, and that whatever rights animals deserve, they shouldn’t be equal to humans.”

He saw the point of my question, and he quickly saw what philosophers would call the ad hoc nature of his argument. His only reason for adjusting his argument was to save it from the implications I drew from it.

I could see the wheels turning. My explanation for equal rights was also on the table – human nature. But the implications of that view were also clear: if human nature is the thing that we all share equally that demands that we be treated equally, then the unborn should be treated equally, too, because the unborn has that same human nature.

“Okay, you’ve convinced me,” he said. “I agree that abortion should only be legal if the mother’s life is in danger.” A second change of mind.

Unlike many students I talk to, who feel they have to put on confident airs or defend their arguments at all costs, Jack clearly wanted something more than to impress me. He wanted to understand truth. He got the truth, and I ended up impressed with him anyway – especially with his humble spirit.

I hadn’t taken a posture of trying to change Jack’s mind. Our conversation functioned more like a mirror, reflecting back to Jack what I heard him telling me. He responded like the happy young chap about to make a business proposal who barely remembers to check the mirror and finds a spot of mustard left unceremoniously on his chin by his lunchtime liverwurst. No one wants to be oblivious to his real state of affairs. There were two factors, though, that especially caused my mirror to be helpful to Jack:

• Without the skills of clear thinking, the mirror would have failed to reflect certain portions of the image properly. Because I knew the questions to ask, the exact image emerged for Jack. Mastering clear thinking skills takes work, but you can learn to create a helpful reflection for someone like Jack. To take practical steps to begin developing these skills, see www.jfaweb.org/clear-thinking.

• The image would have become blurry or distorted like that of a carnival mirror had I not had an attitude of humility and goodwill. If I had needed to show Jack my intellectual prowess, he might have felt the need to take me down a peg or two. If I had belittled his views or mocked them, it would have made it harder for him to take the truth seriously. He might have felt the need to defend turf, and he would have been distracted from the truth altogether.

Throughout our conversation, I brought an attitude of partnering to find truth together. I considered his arguments as if they might be true. Because he was worth my time, his arguments were worth my best efforts to evaluate them with him. He looked in the mirror that our conversation was presenting to him, saw his views for what they were, and decided to make a change right then.

I sensed that our work was not finished, though, because Jack and I had not yet confronted the two thorniest aspects of the topic, especially when combined as an argument for legal abortion: bodily rights and rape. Instead of assuming the conversation had been sufficient as a mirror, I decided to turn it into a window. That’s when Jack had his third moment of truth. I’ll explain in Part 2 below.

- Steve Wagner, for the JFA Team

Note: Steve’s conversation with “Jack” took place in March 2013. This report was originally published later that year. Special thanks to John Michener of Oklahomans United for Life for his editing on this piece in 2013. This post has been updated in minor ways and can be shared via www.jfaweb.org/mirror-and-window.

---

Part 2: A Good Conversation Is a Window

In this report, you’ll see the conclusion of my conversation with Jack from 2013, and you’ll see him change his mind a third time. You’ll see how I gave him a window for viewing the most compelling arguments for abortion, along with compelling responses to them. I hope reading this conversation will not only inspire you to look deeper into the ideas, but that it will also help you see that you can create conversations which compel abortion-choice advocates to change their minds. - Steve Wagner, August 2021 Impact Report

In Part I above, I described how “Jack” in San Antonio abandoned his belief that the unborn only become valuable at viability and then later said I had convinced him that abortion should not be legal except in the case of a threat to the mother’s life.

“Jack” (above, right) initially clarified that he believed abortion should generally be legal. 90 minutes later he said, “Heck” and wrote on the Free Speech Board (below). He told me that he now thought abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape.

These two changes of mind were encouraging, but I sensed that our work was not finished. We hadn’t yet discussed arguments claiming that even if the unborn is a human being, the woman’s right to her body justifies abortion. I knew that if we didn’t address these bodily rights arguments, especially compelling in the case of rape, Jack might be shaken when he encountered them.

In the first part of the conversation, Jack had been making the claims, and I had been functioning as a mirror to help him assess his own views about abortion. Now I set out to function more like a window, showing Jack other arguments out there that he hadn’t considered yet.

I began by explaining what former JFA intern Trent Horn called the “Sovereign Zone” view: A woman can do anything she wants with anything in her body, and because the unborn is inside her body, the woman can kill the unborn. I pointed out that if a woman has the right to do anything with anything that is inside her body, then many things would be justified legally, including intentionally deforming the unborn by taking thalidomide and intentionally torturing the unborn late in the pregnancy through dismemberment abortion. (See “Autumn in the Sovereign Zone” at www.jfaweb.org/body for more on this approach.)

Seeing the implications of the Sovereign Zone view clearly through this window, Jack and I agreed it had to be abandoned. I knew that there was a stronger version of the bodily rights argument that was not so easily dismantled, though, and I went on to tell Jack about it.

Sure, it’s obvious that a woman can’t do anything to anything that is inside her body. But can she be forced to allow the unborn to do something to her body – to use her body to sustain its life? Or does she have a right to refuse? As Trent Horn has pointed out, unlike the Sovereign Zone argument, which is based on a very controversial premise, this “Right to Refuse” argument is based on a very uncontroversial premise: Generally speaking, you can’t be forced to do something with your body you don’t want to do.

It’s not only pro-choice advocates who find this argument plausible. I find it plausible. If you find yourself hooked up to someone who needs your kidney to live, you can’t be forced to stay hooked up. How then can a government force a woman to stay hooked up to her unborn child? And worse, what if the woman didn’t consent to intimacy? Can a woman who is pregnant from rape be forced to continue to use her body to sustain the unborn’s life? As Jack and I pondered these questions together, I noted how compelling this line of reasoning is. Even if it holds only in the case of rape and therefore applies to no more than 1.5% of abortions in America, it’s troubling.

It’s important to note that throughout this conversation I emphasized genuine sympathy for those who have been raped. This is imperative in any conversation about rape and abortion, but especially when that conversation involves complicated intellectual arguments. We should never get so caught up in our ideas that we forget the people affected by them. This is not just true with the topic of rape, but also with any appeal to bodily rights. (Please see “Meeting the Relational Challenge” at www.jfaweb.org/body for more on this.)

I then shared two parables with Jack that indicate there’s something amiss with the Right to Refuse argument, even in the case of rape. I’ll share just a snapshot of one of them here, and you can see a full treatment of the approach I used with Jack in a paper we published online in April 2013: “De Facto Guardian and Abortion.” (You can find this paper, along with newer resources with alternative approaches at www.jfaweb.org/body.)

In the movie Up, Carl (inset image, white hair) sets his house free from the ground, flies thousands of feet in the air, and then hears a knock at the door. The young explorer Russell has stowed away on the porch and is about to fall off. Is Carl obligated to take him in? Should the law expect him to give Russell food and shelter? What if he has to use his body to pour water or cut bread for Russell? Does this change the obligation?

Jack agreed that Carl does have an obligation to use his body to support Russell’s life. He also agreed this should be a legal obligation. One explanation of this obligation is that Carl just happens to be, for whatever reason, the only person in the vicinity who can care for Russell. We called Carl a de facto guardian because it seems he has the same obligations as that of a parent or guardian, though temporarily.

The woman pregnant from rape is similarly situated to Carl. She didn’t ask to be in the situation where she would be the only person in the vicinity who could care for a child. But she is. If the de facto guardian principle holds, then, she has an obligation (and, as we argue, what should be a legal obligation) to give the child in her womb the food and shelter he needs. She has the obligation to care for the child even if she didn’t consent to that obligation, and even if she doesn’t feel like a parent. We, in turn, should surround her with support.

After writing this comment towards the end of our conversation, Jack told me that he now thought abortion should not be legal even in the case of rape.

After discussing this strongest version of the Right to Refuse argument and how it fared in light of our intuitions about parables like the Up story, Jack said, “Heck” and wrote on the Free Speech Board, “Life will force you into situations you don’t necessarily want but have to deal with nonetheless.” He then verbalized to me that abortion should not be legal, even early in the pregnancy and even in the case of rape.

I saw this third change as more significant than Jack’s previous changes of mind. Now I was satisfied that I had created a window so he could see clearly the very best arguments for legal abortion before rejecting them. Evidently I did a good job of presenting those arguments, because at one point Jack said I was making him start to waver and think abortion might be justified. As you can imagine, I created this window for Jack with some fear and trembling. Why risk someone wavering back toward the pro-choice position? Even worse, why risk someone becoming a more confident pro-choice advocate with better arguments?

There are two reasons my fears didn’t keep me from creating a window for Jack. First, truth is not fragile. It will shine through if we ask the right questions and apply our minds to the study of sound reasoning. Second, Jack is a human being who is intrinsically valuable. He’s not an opportunity to make a convert. He deserves my best efforts to create conversation that is both a mirror and a window.

- Steve Wagner, for the JFA Team

Note: Steve’s conversation with “Jack” took place in March 2013. This report was originally published later that year. Special thanks to John Michener of Oklahomans United for Life for his editing on this piece in 2013. This post has been updated in minor ways and can be shared via www.jfaweb.org/mirror-and-window.

Postscript

JFA’s “Stop and Think” Exhibit is reflected in the windows of a building at Colorado State University in 2016. In a way, JFA’s Exhibits also function as both a mirror and a window - reflecting back to people the reality of what their views entail and giving people insight into topics and ideas they may never have thought about. You can see all of JFA’s Exhibits at our Exhibits page.