4 ways pro-lifers can communicate more clearly about abortion
Secular Pro-Life surveyed hundreds of people asking them to work through dozens of medical scenarios and tell us which ones they considered “abortions.” (You can take the survey here.) We compared the answers of committed pro-lifers, middle-ground respondents, and committed pro-choicers to better understand the way these groups communicate with each other.
For the data nerds, I wrote a detailed analysis of the results. But if you want to get to the actionable info, here’s what you should know:
There’s no single universally recognized definition of “abortion.”
According to our survey, pro-lifers and pro-choicers aren’t working from one shared definition of “abortion.” Neither are pro-choicers among themselves, or even pro-lifers among ourselves.
What do we do with these results? SPL is all about having good conversations with moderate and persuadable pro-choicers. If you’d like to help us do that, here are the lessons we’ve drawn from the data.
1. We should define “abortion” more precisely
For the most part pro-lifers define “abortion” based on intent: it’s the intentional killing of an unborn child.
But in our survey, moderate and pro-choice respondents used broader definitions. Some considered treatment for ectopic pregnancy or pre-viable delivery to be abortions. Some even considered miscarriage to be abortion, at least medically.
When we say “abortion should be illegal,” too many people hear that we want to outlaw miscarriage management, treatment of ectopic pregnancy, or emergency medical care that ends pregnancy.
Don’t assume these interpretations are in bad faith, or for political reasons. Many people genuinely think (1) these are commonly accepted and understood definitions of abortion, (2) we pro-lifers also use these definitions, and (3) we don’t care if women can’t get this kind of medical care.
Sure, abortion activists themselves will hurl these accusations no matter how clear we are. But the loudest and most aggressive voices don’t at all represent the average pro-choice American. There are plenty of people who appreciate when we clarify what we actually oppose.
So communicate more specifically. Possible examples:
- “Elective abortion should be illegal.”
- “Emergency medical care during pregnancy is crucial. Killing embryos and fetuses when there’s no medical emergency isn’t.”
- “Nearly all abortions are done on healthy embryos or fetuses carried by healthy women. That’s not healthcare.”
- “We support emergency medical care. We oppose abortion on demand for any reason.”
We can’t stop bad faith interpretations but we can mitigate genuine misunderstandings.
2. We should openly acknowledge medical complexity
In our survey, middle-ground and pro-choice respondents were skeptical when they thought scenarios sounded medically oversimplified.
People want reassurance that pro-lifers understand and care about the fact that pregnancy can be dangerous. We don’t have to oversimplify pregnancy to defend prenatal children. Readily acknowledge more common pregnancy issues such as:
- ectopic pregnancy,
- miscarriage management,
- dangerous maternal complications, and
- nonviable pregnancies.
In particular, if you or someone you’re close to has experienced these issues, consider pointing that out. Sometimes people think we’re pro-life only because we’ve never experienced difficulty, and if we just understood how complicated life can be we’d change our minds. Let them know that many of us are pro-life not for lack of experience, but precisely because of our (often life-defining) experiences.
[Read more – Personal Stories and Policy Gaps Around Miscarriage]
Emphasize what you’ve gone through, how big of a deal it was, and how it didn’t ultimately change your view about the value of prenatal children. (Quite the opposite, in many cases, difficult pregnancy circumstances moved some of us from pro-choice to pro-life.)
We know pregnancy is quite serious; we think taking the lives of prenatal children is also quite serious. Two things can be true.
3. We should distinguish medical, moral, and legal questions
A major takeaway from our survey was that people often separate:
- whether something medically counts as abortion,
- whether it is ethical,
- and whether it should be legal.
Moderates especially treated these as different questions.
For example, someone might think methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancy counts as abortion while also believing it is ethical and should remain legal. Our survey showed that pro-lifers closely related “abortion” and “unethical” behavior, but moderates and pro-choicers didn’t draw such clear relationships.
It can be helpful if we point out that we aren’t looking to outlaw everything we think is unethical. There’s plenty of behavior (both related to reproduction and otherwise) that pro-lifers might morally object to but aren’t seeking to pass laws against. When does unethical behavior cross the line from personal opposition to legal restrictions? Answering that question can help us narrow in on the particular problems of elective abortion we want moderates to recognize.
4. We should stop saying “abortion is never medically necessary”
I can’t overemphasize this one. When pro-lifers say “abortion is never medically necessary” they typically mean
- the intentional killing of the unborn child is never necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s health, and
- interventions which will foreseeably cause the deaths of embryos and fetuses aren’t necessarily intending those deaths, and so don’t qualify as abortions.
Our survey indicates that these distinctions aren’t clear even to all pro-lifers, much less to moderates and pro-choicers.
When we argue “abortion is never medically necessary,” many people hear “we don’t know or care that pregnancy can be dangerous.” This is terrible communication.
If you want to communicate in the language moderates and pro-choicers are more familiar with, you can say “I think abortions in medical emergencies should be legal, and elective abortion shouldn’t be.”
If your skin crawls at the idea of using the word “abortion” to describe emergency medical care, that’s okay. You can still opt for phrases similar to those I listed under point #1 above.
The main point is to recognize that often the people we’re talking to are using a broader definition of “abortion” than pro-lifers use, and to make sure we communicate our perspective in ways they will understand clearly.
All of these suggestions are about finding common ground, opening lines of communication, and building trust with people who don’t already agree. I emphasize these themes when training pro-lifers to communicate well with the broader public. Learn more about our trainings and speakers here.
If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one-time donation here or volunteer with us here.
