Expanding our reach

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Trump Pence are way better than Cruz, who has accomplished little in the Pro-Life movement.

Rick Perry, even Christie and Kasich have done more.

You'll pardon me if I wait for Trump and co to accomplish something for the pro life cause other than defend the nation's largest provider of chopped up baby parts.

[Doug Loss]

You'll pardon me if I wait for Trump and co to accomplish something for the pro life cause other than defend the nation's largest provider of chopped up baby parts.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I hope we can keep from going off on a pro/anti Trump tangent on this topic.  I'd really appreciate critiques, ideas, thoughts on the outreach I'm hoping to develop.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't jump right in on the discussion above elsewhere, but not here, OK?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I hope we can keep from going off on a pro/anti Trump tangent on this topic.  I'd really appreciate critiques, ideas, thoughts on the outreach I'm hoping to develop.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't jump right in on the discussion above elsewhere, but not here, OK?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I said stated my peace and I'll let it stand at that. I've been reading with interest, but I'm afraid I don't have much to add.

[Doug Loss]

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I said stated my peace and I'll let it stand at that. I've been reading with interest, but I'm afraid I don't have much to add.

What might help is if folks could take a look at the posts I'm putting up on http://thyblackman.com and the comments there.  We can see how such outreach is received, think of ways to modify the presentation to work better, and come up with calm, inclusive responses to any challenges or disagreements.  I'm looking at this as a first effort in outreach, sort of a shakedown cruise.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

What might help is if folks could take a look at the posts I'm putting up on http://thyblackman.com and the comments there.  We can see how such outreach is received, think of ways to modify the presentation to work better, and come up with calm, inclusive responses to any challenges or disagreements.  I'm looking at this as a first effort in outreach, sort of a shakedown cruise.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Doug Loss]

My second piece on ThyBlackMan is up:

http://thyblackman.com/2016/12/11/the-right-to-live/

Here's the text of it:

The Right to Live.

As I said in the first piece I wrote for ThyBlackMan, I’m going to talk about the things that I (and many others I’ve talked to) believe in, and what those principles mean when you think about them.

We believe that all people have certain rights, which are theirs from birth and which cannot be taken from them. Many people believe these rights to be imbued by God the Creator; others see them as inherent to consciousness and self-awareness. But everyone agrees that these rights are fundamental to all people. These rights are absolute; they can only be restrained when exercising them would interfere with the rights of others to exercise the same rights.

These rights don’t depend on any particular personal characteristic or on membership in any particular group. These are rights inherent to all people. They attach to the individual, not to any group.

The right to live is fundamental; without life no other right has meaning. Intentionally depriving an innocent person of his life is a crime in every civilized society in existence. The only legitimate reasons for depriving another person of his life are the defense of yourself or another person who is in danger of being killed, or conviction for a capital crime after having been tried by a jury of peers. Anything else is immoral and outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

The determination of personhood is one fraught with difficulty. In times past, the personhood of people was denied because of race, ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, and various other criteria. We believe that none of these criteria are valid determinants of personhood. A human being is a person from birth until death, automatically and without qualification.

Many believe that personhood imbues a human being even before birth. There are varied beliefs about when an unborn human being becomes a person—some believe this occurs at conception, some when the heart starts beating, some when a response to pain is evident, some when brain activity begins, some when viability outside the womb is possible. But almost none of us believe that personhood only begins at birth. For this reason abortion, particularly late-term and partial-birth abortion, is widely considered immoral and unconscionable.

We recognize that a woman pregnant with an unwanted child has rights also. This is not a simple problem. Protecting the rights of both the woman and the unborn child is important. However, today the unborn child isn’t considered to have any rights at all. We don’t believe that to be morally supportable. How to protect these children is something that needs to be discussed calmly by everyone, but this is something that seems to be difficult to do from either side today. At the least, we should provide counseling and assistance to the women who are carrying the unwanted children until the children are born, at which time good homes can be found for them.

When I talk about counseling and assistance, I am not talking about something provided by some disinterested government agency. This is something that we as concerned members of our communities should be doing ourselves, through our churches, community centers, and other voluntary agencies. This would benefit us all in many ways. It would give us much more control over how this counseling and assistance is provided. It would demonstrate to our families, our children, how adults take care of those in our society who need help.

Similarly, states are beginning to pass laws allowing assisted suicides. We don’t believe that it’s generally possible to assist someone in taking his or her own life in a moral way. We understand the condition of irreversible, terminal illness as a factor that might make suicide seem like the best of a bad set of options. But if such a condition isn’t present, the right to live and our responsibility not to take an innocent person’s life makes assisting in suicide immoral.

I’d welcome hearing from you in the comments section, to discuss the topics I’ve brought up in this piece, or anything else that relates to the natural right to live that we all have. As I said before, only by finding common ground with each other can we discuss the things we disagree on calmly and with mutual respect.

[Right_in_Virginia]

At the least, we should provide counseling and assistance to the women who are carrying the unwanted children until the children are born, at which time good homes can be found for them.

Or ... adoption can be a viable option from the beginning of the pregnancy, rather than waiting to the end.  This should include the birth mother's knowledge of the adopting family and financial support from them for medical costs and living arrangements during pregnancy. 

[Doug Loss]

Or ... adoption can be a viable option from the beginning of the pregnancy, rather than waiting to the end.  This should include the birth mother's knowledge of the adopting family and financial support from them for medical costs and living arrangements during pregnancy.

That makes sense to me, but I think it's something that each community should discuss itself.  I'm trying to promote the counseling and assistance to come from local, non-governmental groups, not from some cold government agency uninterested in the actual welfare of the people involved.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

We recognize that a woman pregnant with an unwanted child has rights also. This is not a simple problem.

I think it's pretty simple.  Assume a human life begins at day X.  If abortion is allowed up to and including day X, we are allowing the murder of a baby when an abortion occurs on day X.  If we outlaw abortion after day X-2, we are infringing on a woman's right to choose on day X-1 not to have a child.  So, if we set the limit wrong, we either end up with a pretty serious inconvenience or we legalize murder, depending on which way we are off.  IMO, since we will never know the value of X, and the implications of setting the limit at X or higher are so much greater than setting it too low, the only sensible solution is not to allow abortion at all.

[Doug Loss]

I think it's pretty simple.  Assume a human life begins at day X.  If abortion is allowed up to and including day X, we are allowing the murder of a baby when an abortion occurs on day X.  If we outlaw abortion after day X-2, we are infringing on a woman's right to choose on day X-1 not to have a child.  So, if we set the limit wrong, we either end up with a pretty serious inconvenience or we legalize murder, depending on which way we are off.  IMO, since we will never know the value of X, and the implications of setting the limit at X or higher are so much greater than setting it too low, the only sensible solution is not to allow abortion at all.

What's simple to one person may be complicated to another.  I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live.  Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

What's simple to one person may be complicated to another.  I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live.  Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.

I think I missed making my point.  IMO, we will NEVER get a consensus on what X is (I'm not even entirely certain what *I* believe it to be).  Therefore, we need to look at the implications for getting public policy wrong.  Since the implications of setting X too high are so great, we need to ensure that we never do so, and there's only one way to do that.  Pretty simple logic, to me, though I don't know that I've found an effective way to communicate it.

There are some women who believe that those pro-life types just want to control them or something.  The ones that say men should have no say in abortion.  I wish I knew how to convince them to consider things from my perspective.  They can call me stupid if I've chosen a value for X that they think is too small, but don't call me evil.  I don't want to control what you do with your body, I want to protect your child.  If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but my intentions are to protect your child.

Keep up the good work, BTW.

[Smokin Joe]

What's simple to one person may be complicated to another.  I'm trying to get a discussion, and some buy-in, from people who may not have thought about the implications and the meaning of a right to live.  Also, getting everyone (or even a majority) to agree on the definition of your X is not a trivial task.

Well, imho, X is the moment of implantation into the uterine wall. Conception, for all practical purposes. If that implantation can be prevented (we know that fertilization can be, and that is the amazing part, that with all the means of preventing pregnancy in the first place there have been 50,000,000 abortions since Roe), then no baby. If it happens, baby.

I have heard the rape and incest arguments, but will counter with this. The one innocent in the situation is that developing child. It did no wrong. Yet there are those who will argue that it should suffer capital punishment for the 'crime' of existing. That flies in the face of a fundamental precept of jurisprudence in this country: the killing of an innocent--and what the topic of discussion is here. The only exceptions would be complications such as Fallopian (tubal) pregnancies, (ectopic pregnancies), which will self-terminate, but possibly at the cost of the mother's life.

[bigheadfred]

mur·der
ˈmərdər/
noun
@Doug Loss @Smokin Joe  @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

noun: murder; plural noun: murders

    1.
    the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

This is really simple.

A male of the species is a human being. It is alive. The female of the species is a human being. It is alive. The sperm is alive. The egg is alive. At conception a new human being is formed. It is alive. The intentional killing of another human being is murder. Passing laws saying this is not so is the personification of evil. A woman who has sex and gets pregnant has the choice to have the kid or commit murder.  Anyone who passes such laws to commit murder are accessories to murder. Anyone who uses such laws to commit murder are  murderers. Simple.

[Sanguine]

Well, imho, X is the moment of implantation into the uterine wall. Conception, for all practical purposes. If that implantation can be prevented (we know that fertilization can be, and that is the amazing part, that with all the means of preventing pregnancy in the first place there have been 50,000,000 abortions since Roe), then no baby. If it happens, baby.

I have heard the rape and incest arguments, but will counter with this. The one innocent in the situation is that developing child. It did no wrong. Yet there are those who will argue that it should suffer capital punishment for the 'crime' of existing. That flies in the face of a fundamental precept of jurisprudence in this country: the killing of an innocent--and what the topic of discussion is here. The only exceptions would be complications such as Fallopian (tubal) pregnancies, (ectopic pregnancies), which will self-terminate, but possibly at the cost of the mother's life.

So, the question is usually framed as a woman's rights issue, but I think that misses the point.  Yes, it is a woman's rights issues right up to the point that a child is conceived.  At that time, there is another human involved and I don't think she has a right at that time to terminate their life, any more than a man does if he were to decide he doesn't want to be the parent of a two-year old. 

And, come on, we know what causes pregnancy, and we have numerous ways to prevent it - so it's doubly hard to make the "woman's rights" argument. 

Rape and incest?  Ick.  But, again, where is the fault of the child? 

[LateForLunch]

Well, I wish you luck with a reasoned argument.

Leftists will have ZERO interest in any such thing, for the same reason that Superman avoids Kryptonite (nods to El Rushbo). 

For instance, I heard a blatantly foaming-at-the-mouth Mo Kelly on some radio show tonight castigating Pro-Lifers for (in his opinion) "treating ZYGOTES like human beings, but ignoring convicted murderers on death row. You are not pro-lifers at all because if even one innocent person is executed it condemns out whole culture!!!"
Spoke like a true Marxist, Mo! Bravo! Willing to condemn an entire culture for one mistaken execution and an entire movement (pro lifers) because they are more concerned with the lives of unborn babies than convicted black murderers. Brilliant and SOOOOO morally EVOLVED!!! heh

Black supremacy has come out of the closet and its name is Mo Kelly!!

[Doug Loss]

This is a good discussion, but it misses some fundamental points.  First, we're talking among ourselves, not with those we'd like to convince to agree with us.  Second, the people I'm trying to bring into the discussion aren't necessarily (or even likely) leftists.  They've just supported the left in their positions because they haven't been exposed to the true positions of conservatism.  What I want to do is to bring them into the discussion so we can talk about all these issues calmly, and they can see that we aren't the devils they've been told we are and that they actually agree with us on a lot of things.

[Smokin Joe]

This is a good discussion, but it misses some fundamental points.  First, we're talking among ourselves, not with those we'd like to convince to agree with us.  Second, the people I'm trying to bring into the discussion aren't necessarily (or even likely) leftists.  They've just supported the left in their positions because they haven't been exposed to the true positions of conservatism.  What I want to do is to bring them into the discussion so we can talk about all these issues calmly, and they can see that we aren't the devils they've been told we are and that they actually agree with us on a lot of things.

I think you are going to end up dealing with a couple of fundamental forces of human nature which are going to make those goals difficult.
First, those not inclined to agree with us, for instance, that life begins at conception, usually have an ulterior motive.

They know so-and-so who works at a women's clinic and they aren't willing to brand that person (who is so nice) as an accessory to or a murderer.

Therefore, the whole idea that hoovering that little 'lump of tissue' out of there is actually the murder of a developing human being won't fly with them, because those 'nice', 'caring', people they know, or even are related to and sit down to holiday dinner with, or who sent them through college and bought them their first car couldn't possibly be murderers on the order of magnitude far beyond most ordinary serial killers.
 
People won't conceive that shredding a live, forming human in the womb or burning them to death with chemicals is murder most foul, when the same actions performed on a prepubescent child, teenager, or adult would be horrific.

The idea that what occurs in the darkness of the mother's uterus is worse than any splatter flick they have ever seen, and it happens hundreds of times a day is just too much. It trips their little psychological circuit breakers and they seek a way to gloss over that slaughter with phrases like 'lump of tissue' and 'reproductive rights' and, more clinically, "procedure", "fetus", "partial birth", anything but humanizing the developing human being.

It is a different twist on the same dehumanizing technique used to justify in the minds of other populations the mass slaughter of other humans, by denying them their humanity, whether that denial was made on religious, racial, or other grounds.

In this case, the inability to speak out on their own behalf had doomed the unborn to being described as less than human by those who either want to eliminate them or who don't want to admit to the depth of the slaughter involved: millions have been killed, not for 'crimes against the state' or 'counterrevolutionary beliefs', but because they can't say a word on their own behalf.

If these techniques were used to kill animals, it would be page one above the fold, and clog the news channels and interwebs with protests of the 'inhumanity' of it all.

So, fundamentally, if you can't get people to acknowledge the humanity of a developing child from conception, they will not oppose the slaughter.

Why won't they?
Maybe they know, are related to, work for/with someone in the industry (because, after all, it is an industry).
Maybe they (for whatever reason) view children as an 'inconvenience' (again, the dehumanizing aspect of the rhetoric works toward this, treating a developing human being as a parasite or tumor, feeding off its host at the host's expense).
Or perhaps they have bought into the eugenicist's bit about (first) life, well, just not being life with a possible physical abnormality, or the extended version of how being born into poverty/low tech society/a cruel and harsh world/contributing to a dying planet or any of a host of other excuses, but the bottom line is that they are selfish.
Too damned selfish to allow another person to live, even in the arms of an adoptive family.
That will take more to get past than words will ever muster.

It isn't that they think we are 'devils'. It is that they do not want to admit siding with or participating in the unspeakable horror that has been (and continues to be) done.

[LateForLunch]

I think you are going to end up dealing with a couple of fundamental forces of human nature which are going to make those goals difficult.

It isn't that they think we are 'devils'. It is that they do not want to admit siding with or participating in the unspeakable horror that has been (and continues to be) done.

Joe speaks for me. A large percentage of leftists are fanatics and by definition they are unwilling to reappraise their positions but only participate in discussions as advocates for pushing their own POV, not in order to exchange information, thought or opinions.

So the effort is a good one (to construct a compelling rational argument) as long as we understand that the larger part of the opposition have taken their positions for psychological reasons, not substantive policy or ideological ones. They most often did not arrive at their strong opinions by rational consideration of information and therefore will not be swayed to change their opinions by rational argument.

As Ben Franklin observed, "To persuade one cannot appeal to intellect alone. To persuade, one must appeal to interest."

That is the crux of the matter in terms of appealing to interest - how can one be made to understand that taking a stance contrary to the one they hold is in their own best interests if they perceive their best interests as being apriori, aligned with their own fanatically doctrinaire ideology and preconceptions? 

Also there is a tendency for people who are fanatical ideologues to strongly defend their positions because they are overly-identified with them - in other words, they consider any attack or challenge to their beliefs to be a personal attack on they and their own well-being.

The problem with characterological disorders (such as paranoia and detachment from reality aka neurosis) is that telling people that they are behaving irrationally does not help. Feeling/intuition-centered people consider it wholly rational to be feeling/intuition-centered because their feelings/intuitions TELL THEM that it is rational.

That's why CG Jung categorized some personality types as extroverted, irrational feeling-types - whose cognition and decision-making process is fundamentally so far removed from those of Thinking-type personalities that they are psychologically speaking, an entirely different species of human being.

In order to persuade feeling/intuition type personalities, one must gain a deep insight into their thinking and since they are often very muddled and confused in their own thinking and do not have a great deal of insight into their own inner world (being EXTROVERTED) they themselves are often more inclined to obfuscate or interfere with anyone trying to truly understand them. Such people (neurotics) also often have a profound sense of paranoia and mistrust of others whom they identify as disagreeing with them and so will behave defensively and mendaciously in order to (as they see it) defend themselves from danger.

IOW, for neurotic people, reality itself is considered a threat (because they have constructed a massive, elaborate system of illusory ideas to support their attitudes). Anyone who tries to present, or even discuss reality will be seen as a threat and the person will fall back to defensive behavior and never even come close to considering any sort of rational argument because of their own paranoid defensiveness. From their POV, their need to preserve their bastion of illusions (to keep reality at bay) supersedes any interest they might have in morality or rational topical discourse on matters of policy.   

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them.  But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil").  If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left.  I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them.  But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil").  If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left.  I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.

Are these people we are discussing committed leftists? Some, the purveyors and perpetrators, perhaps, but I would include those who do not wish to regard with horror that their beloved sister, friend, even mother made the decision to have a baby shredded in the womb. Ergo, a "lump of tissue". It wasn't human (yet). It was a parasitic growth, not a baby. ...and a host of other rationalizations to live with not just a decision they may have made in a moment of weakness, but one that another loved one may have made in similar straits or while grossly misinformed.

At that moment, they become emotionally wed to the rationalization of the Left, because to admit they were wrong is to admit that a child, of a relative, their own, that of a friend, etc., was brutally murdered, at the behest of their own mother.

That's a big load for anyone, an incredible admission of personal guilt or the guilt of another whom they might be deeply emotionally invested with.

Even granted a greater degree of separation, to have supported that slaughter, for whatever misguided reason, and then to reverse their stance on the issue is something people find hard. Without getting into religion, where one can find the tools to deal with the idea of having been so wrong for however long it was, not many will change their position because few of those who buy into Leftist lies have the tools to deal with the horror they have supported.

Those who can say they were lied to have the ability to make that shift. Those who can say they were misinformed, ditto, whether they actually had the procedure or not.

But this reversal carries a burden of guilt not easily lifted without the sort of forgiveness people find in Christ. Leftists have often already isolated themselves from the very solace they need to make the change, by virtue of the philosophies (often godless) they have embraced. Otherwise, they have to admit they were wrong, and somewhere, somehow, seek amends for that wrong or haul that burden of guilt from day to day.

As for those who have never had to confront the issue on a personal level, all that is left is to debunk and confront the dogma to which they have been exposed. Again, there is the emotional investment, if for no other reason than to have been so horribly wrong about something so fundamentally repulsive as killing a baby by means which would be ruled 'cruel and unusual' for administering Capital punishment to the most  hideous of murderers.

You remain, fighting an emotional position with facts. We have seen how that works out.

All that is left is to change the emotional basis on which people make their decisions, to allow them to change their rationalizations, to break down the very fabric of the arguments that at four weeks it is just a lump of tissue and not a baby. That isn't easy.

What is involved is reversing the process of 'dehumanizing' the target population. In a nutshell, making a fetus a baby and human again as opposed to a 'lump of tissue' will be the only way to turn the tide. That won't be easy either, but it can be done with those willing to listen.

The question becomes one of overcoming the dogma surrounding the issue and, even more, the fundamental selfishness which would have someone even consider the various forms of inconvenience that are often the sole motive for justifying the murder of a child.

Perhaps it is Hollywood, the constant desensitization of the viewing public toward violence and the value of human life, the murder and mayhem in the Media, entertainment and otherwise, which have numbed people to consideration of the welfare of a child no matter how young, but whatever the cause, that desensitization will have to be overcome.

In a generation of people so disconnected from each other and reality that what is happening on their phone or the internet is often more real to them than the world mere inches away, re-establishing that human connection is going to be an uphill battle. Face to face interaction has suffered significantly already, and the trend is going away from human to human  interaction without some intervening device.

Convincing someone that babies are the miracle they are, that they are a gift and a blessing rather than a parasite or a burden is going to be tough when they are so self-absorbed.

[Doug Loss]

@Smokin Joe, the argument that something will be difficult to accomplish (and in this particular instance I completely agree with you) is no reason not to make the attempt.  Many of the people I am trying to approach are already religious people.  I hope they can come to our understanding of the issue; I'm sure some already have.  What we need to do is to help them push that understanding out into their communities.  Those communities won't listen to us if we just preach at them.  They need to hear the message from fellow members of the community, that they respect.  Those are the people we need to reach.

[LateForLunch]

The question becomes one of overcoming the dogma surrounding the issue and, even more, the fundamental selfishness which would have someone even consider the various forms of inconvenience that are often the sole motive for justifying the murder of a child.

I recognize the originators intention mentioned in the post above yours and I bow to his wish.

I will say only in response to your fine, fine post SJ, that I take exception to the term "murder" since that is a legal term which technically does not apply  (whether good or ill) to the act at this point. I would wholly endorse the use of the term "killing" or even "licentious, horrible, reckless infant-slaughter" but not the legal term "murder". For whatever reason our culture allows this type of homicide and bends over backwards doing semantic acrobatics to avoid calling it was it is - infanticide. 

But until our laws change, abortion is not murder because it is not unlawful. This is a very serious point and distinction to draw, because some in the past have used the reasoning behind their own vengeful acts of murder of physicians who perform abortions, based upon the view that abortion is murder and that therefore our legal system is wholly dishonorable and may be rightfully disregarded in totality. 

[LateForLunch]

@Smokin Joe and @LateForLunch, I understand your positions and don't dispute them.  But the people I'm hoping to reach aren't the committed leftists, they're the ones who have supported leftist initiatives because they've been taught that conservatives are evil (substitute whatever pejoratives you like for "evil").  If we can open a discussion with them by not couching it as a "conservative" one, they may find that when they think things through they really do have more in common with our beliefs than with the left.  I really do believe that exposure to our beliefs will draw more of the mass of people who haven't thought about these issues in any detail to our side.

Well stated and who could argue with that!?! I would lend my shoulder to that wheel if I could. I will ponder it and get back to you.

There was one great novel I read "A Canticle For Leibowitz", which has in it a chapter or two which has the single most convincing argument against abortion on demand that I have discovered. But it is integrated into the novel and presented in dramatic fashion by the author in a way that exponentially increases it's emotional power beyond simply restating it. If you have the chance, maybe read that book. I will look for the specific part pertaining to this and get back to you in the interim. 

[Doug Loss]

Well stated and who could argue with that!?! I would lend my shoulder to that wheel if I could. I will ponder it and get back to you.

There was one great novel I read "A Canticle For Leibowitz", which has in it a chapter or two which has the single most convincing argument against abortion on demand that I have discovered. But it is integrated into the novel and presented in dramatic fashion by the author in a way that exponentially increases it's emotional power beyond simply restating it. If you have the chance, maybe read that book. I will look for the specific part pertaining to this and get back to you in the interim.

I read "Canticle" many years ago as a boy and remember it vaguely but fondly.  If you do find that passage I'd love to see it again.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe, the argument that something will be difficult to accomplish (and in this particular instance I completely agree with you) is no reason not to make the attempt.  Many of the people I am trying to approach are already religious people.  I hope they can come to our understanding of the issue; I'm sure some already have.  What we need to do is to help them push that understanding out into their communities.  Those communities won't listen to us if we just preach at them.  They need to hear the message from fellow members of the community, that they respect.  Those are the people we need to reach.

If that is the road to be taken, it must be built.

The seminal arguments of the left boil down to "It isn't a human" or "It is less than a human" so killing it doesn't matter.
and ...
Somehow, this 'less than a human thing' is interfering with your rights to live the way you want to.

Note, not "Right to live" (except in the most rare and medically identifiable instances when that would not be the outcome), but "right to live as you want to".

Heck, I want to be independently wealthy, have my own jet, have a few thousand acres and a few toys to go play with on them, etc. But I don't have a "Right" to have that without some good fortune and a lot of hard work (not there yet, might never be).

In short the right to live is being confused with some nebulous "right to live as you want to", and while the Pursuit of Happiness may be a fundamental Right, that does not give one the Right to pursue that at the expense of the Right of another to live.

If my idea of Happiness meant having more land, that doesn't give me the right to just up and take the land of those adjacent to mine (or anywhere else, for that matter). My "happiness" would run headlong into their fundamental rights, too.

The conflict here seems to be one of Life versus Convenience (the latter being the pursuit of happiness).
 
Again, as long as that baby in the womb, at any phase of development, is less than a human being in the eyes of the people you are trying to convince, it will be a war of the desires of the Human against the sub- or non-human, and the developing child will be accorded no more rights than a tumor.

There are plenty of options in the search for 'reproductive freedom' without conceiving a child. A little responsibility and some knowledge can be sufficient.

Knowledge is important. For instance, some means of Birth Control become ineffective while the woman is taking antibiotics (I got two grandchildren that way--different moms who are sisters). Had they been aware of that, pregnancy could have been avoided, but I am happy with the grandkids, as are their mothers (well, most days ^-^ ). It isn't a question of  there not being ample options out there for the prevention of pregnancy in the first place.

You have to do away with the idea that conceiving a baby and then killing it is "reproductive choice", because it isn't.
It is not a choice of whether to reproduce or not, but what to do about it when that is a fait accompli.

Until these concepts are debunked and refuted:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That a developing child is somehow less than a human being with none of the rights any other human has.

That the right of the mother to 'pursue happiness' trumps the right of the child to live.

That destroying the result of successful reproduction is somehow 'undoing the act' and thus a "reproductive choice", and not killing a child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...the Left will continue to use those selfsame arguments to justify the slaughter.
Those are the falsehoods they rely upon, along with some eugenicist twists, to support their position.

I am not saying getting people to reverse their positions on these things is impossible, (All things are possible with The Lord), but at the same time, I recognize these will again be positions in which people are emotionally invested and on which their status may depend on consistency with past stated  beliefs. Obtaining that change would be wonderful, indeed, but first you have to convince them they are wrong, and then to publicly admit it
.
For those religious, it may be easier:

Jeremiah 1:5

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Now, how could that be if he was just a lump of tissue?