Man-of-the-Year

Before I ever met Scott Klusendorf I had already heard a great deal about him. He was supposed to be an extraordinary pro-life presenter, having gone from city to city across North America debating and defeating pro-abortion advocates at every stop. He was supposed to be the best of the best. But when I finally got a chance to go down and hear him, my first impressions were less than favorable.

To start off, he was a good deal furrier than I imagined he would be. His beard wasn't completely out of control, but it definitely needed a trim. And though his clothes were clean they seemed a bit too casual for a man about to make a speech. Still, I had arrived early to ask him a few questions so I introduced myself and started asking away.

This man had an answer for all my questions and he had them at his fingertips. He spoke articulately and convincingly and I soon started to understand how he could have come off so well debating a host of abortion advocates. Maybe his beard did need a trim, but this man was certainly impressive.

My questions answered I thanked Scott for his time and wished him good luck with his presentation.

"Oh, I'm not Scott," he replied. "I'm just up here making sure the mic works."

"You're not Scott? Wow...but you sure know a lot about arguing for the pro-life side."

"That's because I've been to one of Scott's presentations before. Stick around a while and you'll get good at it too."

And that is why Scott Klusendorf is Reformed Perspective"s Man of the Year. If you go to one of his presentations you'll hear more than just a great speech. There are lots of speechmakers out there, people capable of making a strong case for the unborn, but this battle is not going to be won by the people making the big speeches at the annual events. If we are ever going to stop the killing of the unborn it is going to be because you and I managed to convince our friends, neighbors and co-workers that abortion is wrong. We're going to have to do the work. Scott prepares people to do just that and he's so good at his job that after listening to him just once you too may be mistaken for a professional apologist.

Trot out the toddler

Scott turned out to be a well-dressed, clean-shaven man with a knack for memorable acronyms and other methods of keeping it simple. He was also very entertaining. The presentation I attended was a full day seminar so there is no way I can summarize it all, but I do remember it all. He talked for more than 6 hours and I still have all the pertinent information locked away in my memory ready for use as the need arises. And that not because I have a good memory --- I have a terrible memory (so bad I've managed to forget my own birthday on a couple of occasions) but Scott's gift is making things memorable.

Among his memorable arguments is one he calls "Trot out the toddler." The abortion debate is all about whether the unborn is a human being or not. We say it is, and abortion advocates insist it isn't. But rather than argue this central issue abortion advocates often cloud the issue. They'll ask questions like, "should we really bring unwanted children into the world?" Scott's response is to "Trot out the toddler." Though a toddler is not actually required for this approach, if you conveniently have a toddler nearby, grab his pudgy little hand and lead him over to your conversational partner. Then ask, "Would it be alright to kill this three-year-old if he was unwanted?" Obviously the answer is no.

A number of objections can be met with this "Trot out the toddler" approach. Abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor? Point to the child again and ask whether it would be alright for parents to abuse their children as long as they did it in private. Again, the answer is no.

The point of this approach is to get the debate back to the only question that really matters. What is the unborn? If it is a human being, like a toddler, then no argument for unwantedness, cost, these are clearly not sufficient reasons for killing a human person. Conversely, if it isn't a human being, then no argument for abortion is necessary. (The "Trot out the toddler" approach was demonstrated a little more fully in the January 2001 Reformed Perspective in an article by Scott called "Only one question to debate.")

SLED

Once the debate turns to whether the unborn is human Scott's SLED acronym becomes useful. While it is true that the unborn differs from the newborn it does so in four ways that are not relevant to its status as a human being. These four ways are Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency (SLED).

1. SIZE: Newborns are bigger than the unborn, but does that make them any more human? Dutch people are generally taller than other ethnic groups, but does that mean they are more human or deserve more rights? Or as Scott put it, "Is Shaquille O'Neal more of a person than feminist Gloria Steinem simply because he is larger?"

2. LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT: The unborn are less developed than the newborn, but is that a valid moral objection? A twenty-year-old is more developed than a kid who still has to go through puberty but does that mean we can kill kids with squeaky voices? Mentally retarded people may have less developed brains than newborns but does that mean we can kill them? (Scarily there are now people who would answer this question with a yes. Fortunately they are still few in number.)

3. ENVIRONMENT: The unborn is obviously in a different location than the newborn, but does that change of location make someone more or less human? When you leave the kitchen and move to the living room do you switch from being non-human to being human? Or is it vice versa? As Scott notes, "Clearly where someone is has no bearing on who someone is." And yet a premature baby will be regarded as human because it is out of the womb while the unborn, due to its location in the womb, is regarded as non-human.

4. DEGREE OF DEPENDENCY: The argument is sometimes made that since the unborn can't survive on its own it is not human. The thought is that viability is what makes someone human. If this were true then anyone on a respirator, or dependent on a kidney machine would also be non-human as they too can't survive on their own. Need a pacemaker? Sorry, but they only provide pacemakers to humans and since you aren't viable on your own you therefore aren't human. So obviously these four differences aren't valid reasons for disqualifying the unborn as fully human.

Run, don't walk!

This is only a taste of what Scott presents in his daylong seminar. In the presentation I attended he also discussed five ways we shouldn't argue about abortion (including attacking the person rather than refuting their argument), touched on the use of graphic pictures, made us practice what we had learned and provided answers to all the most commonly asked questions. As well, I was given a 58-page booklet to help me remember what we had gone over.

As a sometime politician I really appreciated the seminar and now feel prepared to answer almost any pro-abortion argument my opponents may bring up. But more importantly I now feel prepared to talk to my apathetic friends about abortion. The opportunity doesn't come up often, but the next time it does I am now ready.

Are you ready? Scott is available to speak at churches, college groups, campus events, crisis pregnancy center fund-raisers, conferences, debates, or retreats. Phone up your pro-life group and ask them to bring Scott up to one of their events. Beg them to bring him up! If you're one of the millions of Christians who should be speaking out about abortion but feel tongue-tied when you talk to your friends, then you have to go hear Scott! You just have to!

Jon Dykstra is a staff writer for Reformed Perspective.