Twelve pro-life dinner-table questions and honest answers

Picture the table. It is a holiday, the turkey is carved, and your cousin, who is smart, kind and a little too fond of a good argument, asks the question. Everyone else suddenly discovers how interesting the cranberry sauce is. You have about nine seconds before the silence turns into an event.

You can fumble it, you can pick a fight, or you can have an answer ready that is honest, short and humane. This post is for the third option. It gives you twelve of the questions people really ask, with answers that stay in law, philosophy and policy. It makes no medical claims, because a dinner table is no place to play doctor and none of us is one here. And it has one rule above the rest: the goal is not to win the room. The goal is to be the person at the table people would call if they were in trouble.

Ground rules before the first question

These are the rules that keep the answers honest, and they work whatever the topic.

1. Say what you are claiming. A factual claim, a legal claim and a moral claim are three different things. Know which one you are making.
2. State their position the way they would. If your cousin would not recognize your summary of her view, you have a weak argument, not a strong one.
3. Do not use a statistic you cannot source. At a family table, one wrong number ends the conversation. Use the argument instead.
4. Admit what is hard. The cases people bring up are hard. Say so. A person who pretends there are no hard cases is not credible, and should not be.
5. Remember who is listening. Someone at the table may have lived through an abortion, a miscarriage or an adoption. Speak as if they are there, because somebody at a large table may be, and you will not know who.

Now the questions.

Questions about the law

1. "What about the exceptions? Why do the laws have them, and why do they differ?"

Because the people who write abortion laws disagree among themselves about where the line sits, and legislative compromise produces exceptions. A statute might permit abortion to save the mother's life, in cases of rape or incest, or both. Some states have narrow exceptions, some wider ones, and some require things such as a police report or a time limit.

Two honest points follow. First, the drafting matters enormously. A statute that says "a life-threatening condition" with no definition leaves doctors guessing about when they are protected, and a doctor guessing about criminal liability is a doctor who may hesitate when a patient needs help. That is why clearer drafting of the exception is a live demand in statehouses, because a law that is vague about it works badly for everyone. Second, you can hold the pro-life position and still disagree with a friend about where the exceptions go. Reasonable people on the same side do.

If you want to know what your own state's law says, read it on the state legislature's website. Do not rely on a summary, ours included. For the mechanism behind the differences, see why abortion law differs from state to state, mechanism by mechanism.

2. "Isn't this just religion?"

No, and here is the way to show it without being defensive. The central claim is a philosophical one: a human being at an early stage of life is still a human being, and the equal dignity of human beings does not depend on size, level of development, location or dependence on another. Plenty of people hold that view who do not pray, and plenty of religious people hold the opposite view.

Notice, too, that every law enforces somebody's morality. A law against theft enforces a moral judgment. So does a law against child labor. The question is never whether a law reflects a moral view, but whether the view is true and whether the reasons for it can be given in public. We take on the broader claim in 'You can't legislate morality' is wrong on its face, and here is why.

The fair concession: many pro-life Americans are motivated by faith, and the First Amendment protects their right to be. A motive is not an argument. Judge the argument.

3. "Why not leave it to each woman? It's her body."

This is the question to take most seriously, because the principle behind it, bodily autonomy, is a real principle. We should grant it its strength. Nobody can be forced to donate a kidney to save another person, and the law does not ask it.

The pro-life reply is that the argument depends on the answer to a prior question: is there another human being involved? If there is not, then the matter is one of the woman's own body and the discussion ends. If there is, then the question is whether one person's right to control her body includes the right to end another's life. Most of our law says liberty stops where it ends someone else's life. That is why the dispute is about the status of the unborn child, and not about whether women are trusted.

The honest rejoinder you will hear is that pregnancy is unlike any other situation, and that the burden is real. Agree with that. The burden is real, which is why the pro-life case must come with practical help, not just a prohibition. We say more about that in 'Pro-life stops at birth' is the line to answer, so let's answer it.

4. "Does the Constitution say anything about abortion?"

The text does not mention it. That is the plain answer, and the Supreme Court said as much in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, when it overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Roe had located a right in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Dobbs majority concluded that abortion was not a right "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and returned the question to the people and their elected representatives.

Two things to hold at once. The Constitution does not ban abortion, and it does not guarantee it either. And the Court's ruling is a statement about who decides, not about who is right. That is why the argument now happens in legislatures, on ballots and at your table. For the whole case in order, read What the Dobbs decision actually decided, step by step and in plain English.

Notice, too, that some thoughtful scholars who support abortion rights said Roe was poorly reasoned long before Dobbs. We cover that in The pro-choice scholars who called Roe bad law long before Dobbs. It is a fair thing to mention at a table, because it shows that criticizing the reasoning is not the same as criticizing the result.

5. "Does the pro-life position require a national ban?"

Not by definition, and this is where the movement disagrees with itself. One camp says that if unborn children are persons, then protection should not depend on the state line, and Congress should act. Another camp says the federal power is limited, that the Constitution's design leaves most such regulation to the states, and that a national ban would be an overreach that voters would reverse in the next election. Both camps are pro-life.

A practical point rarely made: Congress would need the votes, the Senate has its own rules, and the Constitution gives a president a veto. A national law does not happen by wishing. The movement's lasting work is persuasion, at the state level and at the ballot box. Do not pretend you know exactly where this ends. Nobody does.

Questions about belief and philosophy

6. "When does a human life begin, and who are you to say?"

We are not asking you to take our word; we are asking you to look at the argument. A pro-life position generally rests on one claim: a human organism exists from conception and is continuous with the person it becomes. That is a claim about what kind of thing a human being is, and it can be argued about in philosophy. The alternative is to say that humanness arrives at a later point, such as when the child can feel, when she is viable, or when she is born. Each of those proposals has a defender, and each has the problem of explaining why that line matters morally.

The fair way to put it at the table: "I think the line has to be drawn at the beginning, because every later line seems arbitrary. I understand you think otherwise, so tell me where you put it and why."

That last sentence does more work than the first. It turns a shouting match into a conversation about reasons.

7. "What about cases where the pregnancy is the result of a crime?"

This is the hardest question at the table, and you owe the person asking it a serious answer, not a slogan. The position most pro-life people hold is that the child did not commit the crime and that the child's life carries the same worth regardless of how it began. Many also hold that the woman is owed deep compassion, protection, medical care and legal support, and that the offender should face the law's full weight.

Some pro-life people hold that an exception for rape is a reasonable compromise, and many statutes include one. Others hold that the principle admits no exception. Do not tell someone these are the same view. What you can say is that the question is one of the most difficult in all of ethics, that the people on every side of it are generally trying to reach a just answer, and that nobody has to pretend it is simple.

8. "If you really believed this, wouldn't you treat it as murder?"

It is a sharp question, and it deserves a straight answer. The answer is that people hold a moral conviction and also hold views about the law's proper response, and the two are different. In most pro-life states the penalties in the statutes fall on those who perform abortions, not on the woman, and several statutes expressly exempt her. Many pro-life organizations have said for decades that they do not seek to punish women.

You can disagree with that legislative judgment, but it is not a sign of insincerity. It is the view that the law is a blunt instrument, and that a society should aim its penalties at those who do the procedure for pay. If your cousin thinks this is incoherent, ask her what she thinks the law should do about other wrongs where we choose lesser sanctions than the conviction would imply. Most of us accept that sort of line-drawing in nearly every other area.

Questions about politics and people

9. "Why do pro-life politicians seem to care only until the baby is born?"

Because some of them vote against programs, and the critic can point to real votes. That is the strongest form of the charge, and it should be stated fairly. The reply is that the movement's record includes pregnancy-help centers, church adoption and foster work, the child tax credit and the adoption credit. We lay out that record, and where the movement can do better, in 'Pro-life stops at birth' is the line to answer, so let's answer it. For the child tax credit itself, see the child tax credit from $400 to $2,000, told bill by bill.

At a table, concede the fair part: the movement's record is better than its critics say and worse than its defenders claim, and the only credible response is to keep doing the work.

10. "What about IVF? Aren't you contradicting yourself?"

This one splits pro-life conservatives, and you should say so up front. Some hold that the same principle applies to embryos created in a lab; others emphasize the desire of couples who want children, and see a distinction between a decision to create life and a decision to end it. The movement has real internal debate on the point, and we argued it fairly in The IVF question that splits pro-life conservatives, argued fairly.

The best thing to do is not to pretend there is a single conservative answer. There isn't, and the person asking will trust you more if you say so.

11. "What do I say to someone who has had an abortion?"

Start by not turning that person into an argument. You will probably never know who in your life has been through it, and someone you love may have. Listening is the first move and the last. The aim is to be someone who can be told the truth without fear of a lecture.

Here is the principle to hold: a person is not their worst decision, or their hardest one. A moral conviction about an act is compatible with unconditional kindness toward the person who did it, and in most traditions that hold the conviction, kindness is part of the conviction. If a person wants to talk about what help exists, point them to local people who provide it, and to a doctor or counselor for anything medical. We are not equipped to give that advice at a dinner table, and neither are you.

Keeping the peace

12. "How do I disagree without it blowing up?"

Five habits help.

1. Ask a question before you make a statement. "What worries you most about it?" is a better opener than a verdict.
2. Concede the true thing early. If the other side has a point, say so.
3. Keep your voice lower than theirs. It works every time.
4. Never use the word "always" or "never" about a group of people.
5. Know when to stop. A conversation that ends warmly is a better result than one that ends with a win.

The family table is not a debate stage. It is the one place where you will have the same people across the table for decades. Win them for the long game.

The bottom line

• You can hold the pro-life position firmly and still be the most gracious person at the table. The two go together.
• Know which claims you are making: factual, legal or moral. Keep them separate.
• State the other side's best argument fairly, concede what is true, and make your case on the merits instead of the statistics.
• Do not offer medical advice. Point anyone who needs it to a doctor.
• Read your own state's law on the legislature's website, and let people know where they can find real help.