Cut their government funding?
Tell them that Abortion and Slavery rest on the same foundation; that certain classes of people are “property.”
Whenever I hear a doubleminded rant and there is that pause waiting for a response (because ranting lunatics ALWAYS want response to gauge their effectiveness), I do the Mr. Spock trick. I raise one eyebrow, keep an emotionless look on my face and simply reply “fascinating” which kills it.
If they are dogs or swine, font waste your time.
“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
Ask them if they have had an abortion. No?
Then they have no idea what it’s like. No idea of the trauma, guilt and remorse it causes a woman.
Simply ask them the question:
Would you be here if abortion was free?...................
I applaud your position and admire your patience.
I don’t know there is anything one can do other than calmly ask them probing questions about what they said, to see if they, in their own minds, can truly justify what they claim.
Here’s the most common pro-choice argument: It’s my body. I can do with it what I please.
Both parts of that argument are wrong. When a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer just her body. That might seem “unfair”, but that’s how nature works.
Now to the second part. You can’t do whatever you want to your body. For example, you can’t just sit on your front lawn and inject yourself with heroin. Society has long put limitations on that sort of thing.
By the way, screaming and yelling rarely works when trying to persuade someone. As you noticed, the gentle and patient approach is much better.
I think the pro group is more akin to a religious cult than a political or social movement. Whatever PP is, it is NOT about women’s health. As such you are more likely dealing with an emotional and non-logical person and argument. Personally, radical liberals scare the living Hell out of me because they have defined any argument that goes against their cannon as violence and they will respond with violence. That man who roundhouse kicked an abortion protester comes to mind. My means of dealing with them is to stay away from individuals and vote for candidates most likely to do something to pull PP’s funding.
However, if you do decide to argue I’d make it short and to the point. “Did you know that 60% of abortions are black people? The organization was started by Alma Sanger who said in speeches to the KKK that ‘we will eliminate those ugly brown people not by killing them but by stopping them from reproducing.’ Do you really want to continue that racist’s work for her?” After this you have either made your point or you haven’t. But I would continue on my way.
I wish you the best of luck. (By the way, my extreme efforts to avoid conflict are because I carry and I will not let somebody beat me up if I can pull and shoot. I really don’t want to kill anybody. Thus, I am the politest driver you will ever meet. If somebody does yell at me, I say I am sorry no matter what the facts are.)
Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement from which to begin discussions of this subject.
The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, is basic to all others for me. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. In 2020, this voter will examine each candidate's previous voting record carefully on all issues, because past actions are the best predictors of future decisions.
[ Dealing with Planned Parenthood Activists: Your Ideas Please ]
Carl Kolchak sometimes used a cross when dealing with blood-thirsty vampires.....
Ask them if they would like some scrambled spotted owl eggs?
I’ve never tried to persuade someone about abortion, but I personally changed my view rather dramatically over the years. I think the persuadables have probably never really thought the issue through, and so just trying to get them to think about their own position might help.
First, I might suggest it depends on where you yourself are coming from. I personally like Trump’s formulation of the three exceptions: Rape, Incest and to protect the Life of the mother. But I also understand perfectly the view that the if life begins at conception, then none of that should really matter. Not to mention that they open gigantic hoopholes sure to be abused.
But if you’re like me and agree with those exceptions, then you can also accept that while there are critical moral issues with abortion, speaking in terms of absolutes is really hard. The vast majority of people accept abortion as a necessary evil in some situations, but reject in most others. Essentially, “elective abortion” is considered illegal, even if it’s medically or psychologically required in those three instances.
If you can get a person that there is a morally ambiguous middle ground that most people subscribe to, then I would think a discussion about exactly where they stand would be helpful:
When do you think a fetus becomes a human life? Why? What is it about being in the womb that makes a person less worthy of protection than being outside of it would? What are the limits to a parent’s right to harm their own child? What do you think about a woman who smokes and drinks heavily during their pregnancy? Do you think people who are so incapacitated so as to be unable to make their own decisions have rights? If so, what makes them different from a fetus? Do you think abortions for sex selection should be legal? If not, why not? If so, what about abortions based on genetic imperfections? Do you agree that the father has no role to play in the decision? If so, do you agree that the father should be held financially liable if the mother chooses to have the child? If yes, why?
I don’t know how anyone with a true moral compass can wade through those questions without at least conceding that, “my body, my choice”, is not the first and last word on the topic.
First, I only respond to people with whom I have some relationship. You never know how crazy a stranger might be nowadays.
Second, since they tend to relate emotionally, I reply emotionally. People can argue theories and ideas, but no one can argue with your subjective life story.
I tell them that I have adopted 3 children, born of single women, who came from countries which rigorously encourage abortion in such situations. Sometimes I’ll throw in the fact that I also tried to adopt twin girls, but they died of cholera before we got custody. (At this point, we’re all in tears.) I show them my kids’ photos and tell them their rather compelling backstories.
Then I ask if they still think it would have been OK to abort any of them, and if so, which one? Because they’re emotional, virtue-signaling type people, they get rattled. I then explain how, to me, I cannot fathom giving anyone the right to chose to kill my children. Most of them can relate to this.
Obviously, our stories differ. But my point is that it helps to win over an emotional thinker with emotional stories. All the logic in the world is not going to reach them.
He was being polite.
There is only one reason why a college aged male gets involved in political activities such as this: He wants to get laid.
I would suggest ignoring them altogether.
The way past this is to show, by concrete examples (not statistics -- that comes later)--- but stories which show that the woman and the baby are not antagonists or rivals for our loyalty.
The good of the woman naturally coincides with the good of the baby.
You can't nourish one without nourishing the other. You cannot tear apart the one without tearing apart the other.
It's always "Abortion: one dead, one wounded."
And you can't embrace the baby without embracing the woman whose body already embraces him.
I think a very strong insight is, "Can't we widen the doors of acceptance and inclusion? Can't we love them both?"
Ask them if they, personally, are willing stop a beating human heart.
One that they helped create by conception?
The unborn is dependent on her mom for life support. The pro abortion side asserts that the woman has an absolute right to withdraw this life support, purely because she no longer feels like providing it.
Ask if this principle can be extended. Should a hospital have the right to not provide expensive care to those who cannot pay? Should we have the right to deny entry to refugees who probably will need welfare support? Do voters have the right to abolish welfare funding?
Use their own principles against them.
Decades ago, when things were very heated we used to see Anti-abortionists dangling baby dolls all ripped up with a limb or two removed smeared in ketchup. But haven’t seen that approach in a long time.
Maybe broadcasting the sound a fetal heartbeat or baby cooing could be effective.
Some people need to ‘see’ it or ‘touch’ it or ‘hear’ it or a message does not resonate.
Photos of adopted babies/children saved from their pre-planned slaughter could also work well.