.

Page Content   

l    Page Summary

l    Build your Opponent into a  Box

l    The Constitution

.

Page Summary   

The second most critical factor in keeping abortion legal is to learn how to talk about abortion using  the correct language.   This page, by example, explains how to do that using Constitutional language.**   But before the dialogue below will make any sense to you,  you must understand the first factor.

**  Also see the page titled:
How to Speak "Religion" 
to An Anti-abortionist.°   

.

Build Your Opponent into a Box

 Build a box out of  your opposition's words -- a box  that restricts him/her in  answering future questions.   This is a variation of the technique called "leading the witness."   

In any discussion, begin by looking for as many points as possible where you and the anti-choice debater are in agreement.   Get them to commit to as many points as possible as quickly as possible.   Focusing on basic fundamental principles, and ask questions to which they must answer "yes"  or they'll be considered as "a bad person."   For example, "Do you support freedom of religion?"

The Goal here is twofold:  first, to acknowledge the areas of agreement; and second, to put the anti-choice people in a position where later you can challenge their hypocrisy.    Each time they agree to a principle, that limits their options so their future responses must fit within that to which they have already agreed.   For an example of this, see the text below.    

As a second example,  see the page titled:  A New Approach to Saving Innocent Lives.°   For a more detailed explanation of the concepts and principles behind this approach, please see the section titled:   Basic Strategies for Public Pro-Choice Presentations.°   

.

Sample Dialogue   

Let us walk you through the abortion issue 
without ever mentioning abortion.

.

In addition to being political, the dialogue below is also theatrical.   You need to be a good actor to play this to it's greatest advantage   And you also need to rehearse this process  in private before using it in public.

The section below offers just one example of how to build the forced motherhood people into a box.   The setting is a senate hearing, and the  dialogue is between a  senator (Q)   and a person who has been nominated for a court position (A).  

The dialogue below is simply a sample.   It's  a pre-written example.      This is not a convenient,  fill-in-the-blanks form for you to use.    An actual dialogue will be much more complex and will require you, as the one who asks the questions, to be in the moment and to adjust and adapt the concept below to fit the specific circumstances.    To make your presentation more powerful, we recommend that the questions be asked by two people working together as a team.   

The nature and content of the questions asked may, at first, seem to be off the mark and irrelevant.    They are; however, leading the respondent down a particular path to a  particular destination.   Withhold judgment until you have read the entire text of the example below.

Q.    "Do you believe in honoring the intent of our nation's Founding Fathers?   Now remember, these are the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution?"   

[Hold up copies of both documents, one in each hand.  With slight hand movements wave them gently to bring the focus of attention to them. ]    

A.    Yes.  

[Who can say no to that question?]    

Q.    Your job, if confirmed,  will be to interpret the law based upon the constitution and upon the intent of our Founding Fathers.  Is that correct?   

A.    Yes.  

Q.    The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, with the God granted right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"   Do you agree with that?   

A.    Yes.  

Q.    In the preamble to the Constitution,° our Forefathers said that the Constitution's intent included promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty for themselves and for Posterity.    If you are confirmed, do you intend to honor that intent?   

A.    Yes.  

Q.    Tell me about liberty.   What does that mean to you?

A.    ---------------------------.  

Q.    Let me clarify this.   Do you acknowledge that our Forefathers were correct when they said that a  person's  liberty should not be interfered with?  

A.    Yes.  ---------------------------.  

Then how do you find a balance point between personal liberty and the collective public interest?

A.    ---------------------------.  

Q.    In  the July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence, our Forefathers stated that  "all men"  had these rights.  What does "all men" mean?    Does skin color matter?  

A.    No.  

Q.    What do you suppose "all men" meant to the men who signed that Declaration?   Some of them had slaves.   The slaves were  slaves based solely on the color of their skin.

A.    ---------------------------.  

Q.    We'll get back to that in a moment.   In the mean time, let me ask you another question.   When the Declaration of Independence says, "all men,"  does a man's religious preference matter?  

A.    No.  

Q.    So you are saying that someone who follows the Buddhist, the Hindu, or the Muslim religion has the same rights as someone who believes in Christianity?  

A.    Yes.  

Q.    What about gender?  The Declaration of Independence says, "all men."   That doesn't include women, or does it?  Do women have these same rights?  

A.    Yes.  ---------------------------.

Q.    In the slave example, you're interpretation of the Declaration of Independence was different from our Founding Fathers and now you're including women where the Declaration of Independence clearly say men.   We're talking about  the foundation for the United States Constitution.   

[Hold up a copy of the Constitution again and wave it around.]   

You swore on the Bible to to uphold this Constitution.   Were our Forefathers wrong?   What are you doing?    

A.    ---------------------------.   

[Look for statements in his/her answer to use for further questions.   Remember, your goal is to put him/her into a box that restricts future responses to future questions.]   

Q.    Then obviously, in the two examples I just mentioned,  you've made judgment calls.  Will there be other case where you'll be asked to make judgment calls.   

A.    Yes.   Of course.   

Q.    On what basis will you make these judgment calls?   In essence, I'm asking what is your basic philosophy of life?  What is the foundation for your beliefs.  

I am asking about your beliefs because beliefs are the structure° and the context° within which every one of your court decisions will be made.   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    On what criteria did you include women in a statement that clearly says men?   And on what criteria did you include men of color in your interpretation of "all men" when you know that the writers of the Constitution did not?   Are you aware that Article One, Section Two, Clause Three of the Constitution does not say all men and neither does it say women.   It uses the term, "free men."   So tell us now,  how did you come to your decisions?   Are you proposing to violate the Constitution?  

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    I want to know if, in your courtroom,  people can get a fair trial based upon  the evidence or will your personal philosophy pre-decide the outcome of some trials.   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.      Has your personal philosophy ever interfered with your ability to fairly judge a case?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Have you ever prejudged a case?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    How can I be assured of that?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    What about --------------?   [Prior to this discussion, find a controversial decision or a controversial statement that he or she has made.  At the hearing and at this point, ask about the personal beliefs which colored that decision or statement.]

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    Is the United Sates government the server of the people or is it their slave master? 

A.    Server, of course.  ---------------------------.   

Q.    What's the difference?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    As you well know, some humans have delusions of grandeur.    They believe that because of their wealth, or family of  birth, or their position, that they are superior to others.   Are you superior to others?   Will your position, if confirmed, make you superior to others?   Will your opinions be superior to others?  Will you act as server or slave master?

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    Let me go to the Constitution's First Amendment and the  Freedom of Religion clause.   In saying that you honor the  Constitution , you're also saying that you honor the freedom of religion clause.  Is that correct? 

A.    Yes.  

Q.   What about freedom from religion.   Can there be freedom of religion without  freedom from religion?   

A.    No.  ---------------------------.   

Do you honor freedom from religion?

A.    yes.  ---------------------------.   

Q.   Are you saying that a law which forces me to practice someone else's religion is unconstitutional?   

A.    Yes.  

Q.   Let me be more specific.   If two different religious beliefs conflict with each other, is it constitutional for you to uphold a law favoring one religion and denying the other?  

A.    No.  

Q.   Ok, thank you.   I have another question for you.  Where does the sky begin?   

[Say this question rather flippantly and then sit back in your chair.  Sit silently and wait for an answer.   Remember that age-old debate technique where he who speaks first looses.  Wait silently as long as necessary.   When you have an answer, regardless of what that answer is, ask the next question.]   

Q.   At what exact point  does day become night?  

[Again, wait silently for an answer] 

Q.   When does wet become dry?   In the polarity between hot and cold where do we draw the line?  When does  hot become cold and vice versa?   

[Pursue this line of questioning until you've clearly demonstrated that there are questions that simply don't have clear intellectual answers.]

Q.   You're an intelligent man/woman.  Surely you must know the answers to these simple questions.    

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   You're going to be asked to respond to  numerous questions that have no clear answers.   Am I correct to say that when faced with question of this nature -- questions  like "when does day become night?"  the only reasonable answer is,   "Whenever someone say it does."  

A.    yes.  ---------------------------.   

Q.   Would I be correct in saying that this type of question gets an answer that is not an evidence based answer, but rather, is a personal opinion -- a judgment call?   How are you going to answer this type of question?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   So when there is no clear answer to a question, who gets to make the decision?  

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Are you willing to accept that when it comes to religion, a  person's God granted right of self-determination should not be interfered with,  and that he or she has the right to decide the answers to religious questions for him or herself?   

A.    Yes.  

Q.   There is a second option, you know.   You could declare an answer to this type of question and then sit back and watch government agents with guns back it up.    How are you going to deal with unanswerable questions?

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Millions of people used to believe that heaven was a place above the clouds.  But with the advent of rocket science, God has apparently moved it.   Can you tell us please, where is heaven now?  

A.    ---------------------------.   

Perhaps this last question was something that is out of place in legislative halls and courtrooms.   In your opinion, are there questions to which you, in your official capacity as a judge, should not declare a public answer?   Can you give us an example?

A.    ---------------------------.   

How about religious questions.  Can you make a government decision that favors a particular religion, or  in any way restricts religious freedom.

A.    No.  ---------------------------.   

Q.   I have another question.   My wife has flour, sugar, milk, eggs, salt, baking soda, and  chocolate.   She mixes them together with the intent of creating a chocolate cake.   At what point do all her ingredients become a cake?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Again, we have a situation where there is no exact point of transformation  --  no exact point where one thing becomes something else.    Any answer to this type of question  is a judgment call.  There are numerous possible answers.   In this type of situation, who decides?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   When, in your opinion, do my wife's  ingredients become a cake?

A.    ---------------------------.   

[If he/she attempts to avoid answering any questions because he/she might be later asked to make a court judgment on that topic, respond with:   

Q.   That's a bogus, copout answer and you know it.    Just because previous court nominees used it, does not make it right.  Are you going to take this same weasel clause attitude when asked to make legal decisions.    Surely, you don't expect any court cases about when  my wife's  ingredients become a cake, so tell us please, when do my wife's  ingredients become a cake?

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Are you aware that all court decisions are opinions, interpretations and judgments?   Surely you know that the three branches of government were designed by our Forefathers to have different functions; the legislative creates the laws, the executive administers the laws and the judicial interprets the laws.   Our goal at this hearing is to find out if you are qualified to fairly and impartially interpret the laws.   Are you qualified to do that?

A.    ---------------------------.   

Will you fairly and impartially interpret the laws? 

A.    ---------------------------.   

What assurance do we have of that?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

We've heard high ranking government officials such as former Attorney General  _____  say that they first serve God and then serve the government.   Since the transcendent source of life that we call God is  the ultimate mystery of human existence,  since God is unknown and un knowable,  since there are numerous, conflicting beliefs about God, and since nobody has any provable answers to questions about God,  how is it ethical, moral or right to place service one's own particular beliefs about God ahead of service to the government and the to the public?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Ok, here's another question for you.  Have you ever seen any conclusive evidence regarding the answer to the question "When does  an independent human life begin?"   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   So when you are asked to answer a question where there was no conclusive evidence to support a decision either way, are you going to insert your personal opinion into the law or are you going to say, "We have no evidence to support enforcing one side or the other.   We leave this decision to each person to make for him or her self." ?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.    Christian leaders claim that life begins at conception° and that you are your physical body.    The Eastern religions say that life has no beginning and no end°  --  that humans are not physical at all, but rather are eternal divine beings who simply inhabit human bodies.   I haven't yet  figured out who is right.    This is like the question I just asked about my wife's cake.   Can you offer me some guidelines that I can use to answer questions where there are several conflicting possibilities and no clear evidence supporting any specific conclusions?  

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   Is your personal opinion a justifiable foundation for making a court decisions?   

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   We just talked about dealing with questions  that have no clearly definable answers and no tangible evidence to support drawing any specific conclusions.  As I  recall, you said that such questions should not be dictated by government decree.   

A.    Yes.  

Q.   Am I correct in saying the you will not make judgments from the bench that declare one religious belief to be  right and a different religious belief to be wrong?

A.    Yes.  ---------------------------.   

Q.   The evidence I've studied indicates that we don’t know  What life Is,°    We don’t know   What a Human Being Actually Is,°    We don’t know  When an Independent Human Life Begins,°    and we have no way to find the answers to these questions.  Do you have any evidence that can conclusively tell us when life begins?

A.    No.   ---------------------------.   

Q.   Would you say that the question, when does life begin is a religious question and that it falls into this category?    

A.    ---------------------------.   

Q.   As I  recall, you also said that religious questions should not be dictated by government decree.   

A.    Yes.  

Q.   Then perhaps you can answer this question:   "At what point in the cycle of life do we, as a society,  grant a developing, human, life-form the status of a separate, sovereign, individual human being and accorded him or her full human rights?°   

A.    ---------------------------.   

[If he/she attempts to avoid answering this questions because he/she might be later asked to make a court judgment on that topic, respond with:   

Q.   Again we are back to a bogus, copout answer.   Surely, you don't expect any court cases about when  my wife's  ingredients become a cake, so tell us please, when do my wife's  ingredients become a cake?

A.    ---------------------------.   

And what criteria did you use to draw that conclusion?    How do you know that you are right?

[Please remember that you job, as the one who asks the questions,  is to build a box that the person you are talking to has to stay in.]   

If you require or desire coaching regarding this technique or if you have questions about how to talk religion,  please contact this author.   

We welcome and appreciate your comments and suggestions.  

Contact Us '  

If you find our websites helpful,  please see the page titled:   What Is Required Right Now.°   

.

.constitution.          .constitution.        ...

The United States Constitution's

Please remember that the United States Constitution  does not grant you any rights.   You already have  the rights to life, liberty, religion, free movement, free speech, property ownership, free trade,  etc, and governments do not have the right to infringe upon these God-granted rights.  (Reference)°  

And neither does "The Bill of Rights" grant any rights.  It's mislabeled.  It's correct name is "The Bill of  restrictions."  Why?  Because your rights come from God, not form human institutions.     "The Bill of Rights" was added to the original Constitution to clearly restrict and limit the activities of  government agents.

.