One of the men there made this comment, which is one that I've heard before and that I'm used to responding to. The comment was "I don't think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they're willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal." I'm sure that many of you have heard that remark before. Of course, we got into a discussion about it.

"I don't think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they're willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal." I'm sure that many of you have heard that remark before.

Let me introduce you to a tactic that will make things easier for you. It's very easy for these kinds of discussions to get heated and to get energized in a way that's destructive for understanding. What I should have done right off the bat is taken a moment to restate the question. It seems very simple but at least it will get the question really clear, and it also serves to slow things down a bit which is good. I could have said, "It sounds to me like what you're saying is that no person has a right to object that unborn children are being killed unless they're willing to take care of those unborn children. Is that correct?" Having gotten an answer yes, then I could have asked, "Do you really believe that?" And I presume he did or he wouldn't have said it. Then the next step would have been to say, "Do you mind if I ask you some questions about that?" Ask their permission to get into it with them and then it's a bit more convivial and more congenial a discussion.

Then the ideal thing is to employ a tactic that I call Columbo. The Columbo tactic is like an attorney's tactic really, what an attorney uses in a courtroom and what Lieutenant Columbo, if you recall from the television show, used quite effectively. The Columbo tactic is to ask direct questions that are meant to lead the discussion in a particular direction. Keep in mind that the questions you ask are not meant to unfairly or inappropriately trap someone into saying something they don't mean. The purpose of the Columbo tactic of asking questions is to isolate the critical issue that's in question and to help people see it for what it really is. And in so seeing it, maybe they'll realize that their objection isn't fair or valid.

Now the Columbo tactic can be misused, of course, and I've even had people try to use it on me on the air and I've side-stepped it. But it can be a very powerful tactic and tool for you in promoting clear thinking and clear communication on a very important topic and one that is emotionally charged. So, once again, restate the question clearly. Ask if the person really believes that and then ask if you can question them about that.

There are two ways in which this particular argument doesn't work. Once again, the argument is that no person has the right to object to the taking of unborn children's lives if they are not willing to pay for those children. I think there was another comment along the line to the effect that "I don't see any of the anti-abortion protesters coming forward with cash to help pay for these children." I could have asked a couple of questions to clarify that like "Do you know for sure that those people who are campaigning against abortion don't, in, fact help out with people who want to keep their children?" I did ask that in a kind of fashion towards the end and the answer was no.

So what happens is that you often have people making statements based on assumptions they're making about the other side. The assumption in this case is that these people want to restrict other people's rights but they don't want to pick up the cost once those rights are restricted. That is a statement about something that is allegedly factual. I take exception with the perception of the facts. As I pointed out, the fact is that most pro-lifers would be very glad to do something to help out the mother who chooses to carry her child to term. There are crisis pregnancy centers all over the length and breadth of this country that are there to do just that. As a point of information, the only ones who are really helping out the mother who wants to keep her children is not Planned Parenthood who says they're in favor of choice because these people are really in favor of abortion because that's what makes them money and if you don't have the money for an abortion or you want financial help to carry a child to term you're not going to get it from Planned Parenthood. The only organizations a woman who wants to keep her baby is going to get help from are the pro-life organizations. This person didn't know that most of those people are willing to help. And in my case, I played a part in raising $50,000 last fall just for that purpose. So, I guess if I follow the logic it certainly gives me the right to object. Not only that, many of the people who are protesting against abortion are in that very same position and I can say that because I know many of them. I imagine that if you polled the rank and file pro-lifer you're going to get that kind of response. So from a purely factual basis this objection isn't sound because if it were, or if it were valid, any pro-lifer who has done something for the mother and child would then be in a legitimate position to speak against abortion and therefore silence this objection.

But there's something else that's wrong with this argument and it's something that's wrong with the argument itself. It's something that's functionally wrong with the thinking. It can't work even if none of the pro-lifers want to support the children saved from abortions. The argument doesn't work. Once again, we'll restate the argument. "It sounds to me like you're saying that it is not appropriate for a person to object to the killing of unborn children if they are not willing to provide for the unborn children that are allowed to live." That's the argument. Having restated that and getting an affirmative nod from the person I'm talking with, I want to ask another question. "What would you say if I suggested that we solve the homeless problem in this way. We herd all of the homeless together, who are really a drag on our resources, and inject them with a poison or gas them. Let's just kill them and get them out of the way. Would you object to that?" I presume the answer would be yes and then the response that I would offer would be "What if I told you that you have no right to object to killing the homeless unless you're willing to take some of the homeless into your home or help to pay for them out of your own pocket. Your moral objection isn't sound if you aren't willing to take care of the needs that accrue as a result of letting them live." Obviously in a circumstance like that the person is going to say that it's not an appropriate kind of argument for the same reason that it's not appropriate to say that the United States couldn't object to the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany unless we were willing to take all six million Jews onto our own soil. The reason is because we're talking about human beings. We're talking about people's lives and you don't make a trade off like that. If a person's life is in jeopardy it doesn't matter whether you're willing to care for that life or not for you to have a legitimate moral objection against the taking of that innocent life. That's the point.

The purpose of the Columbo tactic of asking questions is to isolate the critical issue that's in question and to help people see it for what it really is. And in so seeing it, maybe they'll realize that their objection isn't fair or valid.

But they may object that that's a different situation. Why? Because in the situation with the homeless and the Jews we're talking about human beings. We're talking about persons. There's the rub. This illustration makes the point that the issue has nothing to do with whether we are willing to care for those needs or not. Hopefully we would be, but that's not the issue. The fundamental issue is whether innocent human lives are being taken here.

At some point in the conversation this morning another gentlemen raised the question about personhood. That's the difference of whether or not it's a person or simply a human being. That was the place where I should have restated the argument, which would have been something like "If it's a human being it doesn't necessarily need protection if it's not a human person. Human beings can be killed. Human persons can't be." I think that's probably the way that this argument would be stated if we asked for a clearer statement of the point of view. In this circumstance you don't have to put words in people's mouths, just ask them to state it clearly, or restate it and ask them if that's what they mean.

Then all you have to do is ask this next question. And this is the advantage of a Columbo tactic--you don't have to do all the talking. You can ask fair, reasonable questions that will reveal the weakness of another person's argument. The next question to follow the restatement of the argument is this: "What is a person other than being a human being?" I have talked to very few people who have made this particular point and who have been able to even begin to articulate what they mean by personhood, other than being merely human. I'm wondering how one can even make the distinction? Where does one get the idea that human beings aren't persons?

What's really interesting about this question is that most of the time you're going to get silence. At this point you can make an observation. "You have just told me that it's okay to kill human beings that are not persons and therefore you're in favor of abortion, but then you don't know what a person is. Therefore, you don't know whether an unborn child is a person or not because you have no qualifications for personhood. Yet you're willing to terminate the life of an unborn child because you don't think they're a person." Do you see the quandary that puts a person in? You're forcing them to defend their point of view. When they're forced to do that, more often than not, what they realize is that their comment that there's a difference between a person and a human being is really rhetoric. I don't mean to be condescending to people who make this argument. But they are merely repeating things that they've heard other people say but they've never thought it through themselves, or else they would never dismiss an unborn human beings life on the basis of it being a person without ever knowing precisely what a person was.

If they do give you some characteristics of what a person is what you'll find is, first of all, the list is arbitrary. Secondly, there are always going to be items on that list that supposedly identify persons as opposed to a human being but which will exclude human beings that are clearly persons. For example, self-consciousness is often on the list but an infant isn't self-conscious either. If self-consciousness is a qualification for personhood then little babies are not persons, and by that reasoning we can take an infant's life without killing a person. It doesn't work and that's the problem with lists of criteria which distinguishes person from human beings. They turn out to be arbitrary.

The simplest way to approach it is that there is no difference between a human being and a person. Human beings are persons by their very nature. They are personal beings. Whether or not they are self-conscious is not the issue. That is the nature of being human. All human beings are persons. It seems to me that for someone who says some humans are not persons, such that we can take their life without justification--other than that they're in the way, then the burden of proof to prove that they're aren't worthy of life is on them because a life is in the balance. Unfortunately--in what turns out to be a very cavalier manner--people toss out this term personhood as if it's some kind of self-presenting concept that everybody understands, even though nobody can define what a person is. They toss it out in an attempt to end the discussion and win the argument for themselves. And in the process little human beings who are totally defenseless are permitted to be killed at the very time when they should be most protected.

At least that's the way I see it.