Planned Parenthood is exposed for trafficking aborted baby parts. Bruce Jenner changes himself into Caitlyn Jenner and the culture lauds him as courageous. The United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision, recognizes homosexual marriage. In the midst of the maelstrom of change in American culture, traditional Christian beliefs and values are no longer the norm but the exception. The Christian now finds himself having to defend his beliefs against a vocal and aggressive liberal agenda that seeks to remove any vestige of Christianity from our culture. If there has ever been a time in America where the believer must be ready to give a reason for his faith, it is now.

But, just how do you argue effectively in the midst of a cacophony of competing ideas? I want to provide some tips to keep in mind as you engage our culture. In doing so, I will use George Stephanopoulos’ recent interview with Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, as a test case. Richards’ argumentation is indicative of what you can encounter in our culture and of what to avoid when developing your own arguments.

Listening well

When you are engaging someone else about any cultural issue or objections to Christianity, there are several things to keep in mind that can help you effectively address their objections or issues. In particular, there is the receiving aspect of engagement where you listen to and process the arguments of others. Then there is the answering aspect where you address an issue with your argument. Let us first look at the receiving aspect of engaging the culture.

Listen to the opposing argument. Too often Christians talk past those of different viewpoints because we fail to pay close attention to their objections and issues. Though the Lord can use you despite any mistake, you strengthen your case when the other person knows you hear their argument. Listening to another’s argument entails that you hear what they are saying and not saying.

One’s argument consists of his claim and his stated reasons of support (or premises). Yet, when you encounter an argument, there is more than meets the eye. Undergirding every argument is the arguer’s unstated reasons and presuppositions—basic beliefs that are taken for granted. When you encounter an argument, listen for what the arguer is not saying. Detecting the arguer’s unstated premises and presuppositions may give you more headway in addressing the real issue at hand.

The PP interview and logical fallacies

In her July 26 interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Cecile Richards defended the actions of Planned Parenthood doctors caught on camera allegedly negotiating prices for aborted fetuses. According to Richards, the doctors have done nothing wrong, and what Planned Parenthood doctors really offer are basic healthcare services for women. What Richards does not state in her interview—that which necessarily informs her claim—is her views on the nature of man and on what constitutes a basic human right. To adequately address Richards’ interview, you would need to deal with her unspoken premises in order to make any progress in exposing and defending the truth.

Analyze for possible logical fallacies. A basic logic course can equip you with the most common fallacies committed in everyday arguments. If you have taken a logic course, but time has erased what you have learned, there are excellent books and web resources that can refresh your memory. What you basically need to look for, however, are the following fallacious methods:

1. Attacking the arguer, not the argument. The easiest thing to do when answering an someone’s argument is to attack their character or to bring up circumstantial issues that are not related to the point at hand. In short, does the other person shift the focus away from the topic in their argument? (And a word of caution to you – do you employ such a method in your own argumentation?)

Consider again the Richards’ interview. Rather than address the pressing issue (was the content of the released videos true?), Richards quickly shifts attention to those behind the videos, labelling them as “militants” and “extremists,” as well as grouping them with those who have bombed abortion clinics and murdered abortion doctors. By attacking the credibility of those who released the videos, Richards essentially neglects the real issue of the interview to take the spotlight away from her. Such a move, however, is fallacious as her argument does not address the claim made by the released videos.

2. Distracting the audience. Here the arguer at least stays on topic (in general), but subtly shifts the focus to a simplified version of the another’s argument. The arguer then attacks this simpler argument in order to bolster his own claim. Usually the subtle change is such that the audience, if not careful, can potentially accept the arguer’s claim despite its fallacious argument (this is another word of caution for you as well—stay on topic.).

Richards’ modus operandi throughout her interview is to shift the focus to a related but irrelevant topic. George Stephanopoulos raised questions regarding the content of the released videos: Do Planned Parenthood clinics profit from selling parts of aborted babies? Have the doctors who appear on camera been reprimanded? How many clinics are known to harvest fetal parts and profit from them? Richards answers the questions, but consistently directs the audience to the menacing authors of the videos and to the numerous health services Planned Parenthood offers to women. In short, Richards’ answer to the charges brought against Planned Parenthood does little to bolster her claims.

3. Using unclear language. A problem with printed or recorded arguments is that, if the arguer is not careful to be clear, the audience can mistake the meaning of a word or idea intended by the author for another meaning. Words that are ambiguous (they have more than one distinct meaning) or vague (they have an indefinite range of meaning) can be misinterpreted if the arguer fails to explicitly define them or clarify the context in which they are used. When the arguer is not present, it can be difficult for the audience to know the intended use behind such problematic words.

Euphemisms are problematic as well. Euphemisms are words or phrases that attempt to “soften” words or phrases that are harsh, disturbing, or socially unacceptable. In her interview, Richards uses the euphemism “unintended pregnancy” for those women who visited Planned Parenthood for an abortion. By labeling the pregnancy as such, Richards attempts to paint abortion in a more positive light by implying women have the choice to end an unintended or unplanned pregnancy. The abortion, then, is not about the baby, but about the woman’s choice. In part 2, I will unpack the answering aspect of the argument.

__________________

J. Daniel McDonald, Ph.D., serves as adjunct professor of Christian Worldview and Apologetics at Boyce College.