Listen.<\/p>\n
Follow what the other person is interested in, not necessarily what\u2019s most important to you.<\/p>\n
Use your own experience rather than mere logic. People relate to personal experience more, and it\u2019s less of something to argue about.<\/p>\n
Be mindful that they have experience, too. Combat veterans, and people who\u2019ve had abortions or who\u2019ve been closely involved with people who did, need a sensitive approach.<\/p>\n
Gripe about media coverage. You can just about never go wrong with any activist on any issue doing that, and it might help build rapport.<\/p>\n
Pro-lifers who aren\u2019t Peace Advocates (yet)<\/strong><\/h3>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/blog-life.jpg\")
First: assure them you\u2019re pro-life<\/i><\/p>\n
It\u2019s a simple matter of showing you have sense enough to know it\u2019s wrong to kill babies. Once that\u2019s established, you\u2019re sensible enough to speak of other things as well.<\/p>\n
Also: address misunderstandings<\/em><\/p>\nA lot of people think the consistent life ethic waters down the abortion issue by saying pro-lifers must devote a great deal of time and energy to various other issues such as the death penalty, war, and poverty; it\u2019s therefore a criticism of their work directed against abortion.<\/p>\n
But we say that putting abortion in with other issues of violence strengthens the case against it. Also, there are peace-and-justice activists and sympathizers who find the consistent-life approach of linking issues far more persuasive.<\/p>\n
If they cite cases of people using the \u201cseamless garment\u201d to water down the abortion issue, tell them that was a blatant mis-use. Mis-use isn\u2019t confined to the consistent life ethic; after all, people also twist ideas like freedom and equality to support the violence of feticide.<\/p>\n
Many have proposed that the consistent life ethic was invented to give politicians, especially Catholics, a pass when they support abortion availability, by declaring themselves for the nonviolent side on other issues. You can assure them that \u201cgiving a pass\u201d is the opposite of what consistency does. Instead, the consistent life ethic is a challenge: if they\u2019re good on opposing violence in other ways, why don\u2019t they oppose feticide also?<\/p>\n
Peace Advocates who aren\u2019t Pro-lifers (yet): <\/strong><\/h3>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/peace-symbol.jpg\")
De-Martian-izing<\/em><\/p>\nMake sure to bring up your pro-peace bona fides, preferably before the topic of abortion even comes up. They need to know you\u2019re a genuine peace-and-justice oriented person so that the stereotypes they may have of pro-lifers are broken at the start. They may think of pro-lifers as Martians, but you\u2019ve shown you\u2019re not a Martian before you reveal you\u2019re a pro-lifer.<\/p>\n
Back to the Comfort Zone<\/em><\/p>\nI have experience with a technique I call \u201cBack to the Comfort Zone.\u201d When you\u2019re with an individual or group and there\u2019s reason to bring up some criticism of abortion, something that fits the flow of conversation, then bring it up.<\/p>\n
But suppose you\u2019re in a situation where people weren\u2019t expecting it \u2013 for example, you\u2019re countering a misconception someone brought up without a clue that it\u2019s a misconception. Or you bring up your own personal experience in a group unaware that people have such experiences.<\/p>\n
Just as you see that they\u2019re starting to get uncomfortable, just as they appear to be wondering how to deal with this unexpected information, just as they\u2019re starting to process it as being perhaps a confrontation \u2013 then switch to another topic. One that makes them more comfortable and fits the flow of the conversation.<\/p>\n
What you\u2019ve done by bringing the topic up at all is that you\u2019ve taken them out of their comfort zone. You\u2019re not embarrassed, of course, because you\u2019re confident in your understanding, but they\u2019re<\/em> embarrassed.\u00a0 Then, before they have time to react, put them back in the comfort zone. Confrontation doesn\u2019t develop.<\/p>\nMy experience is that by the end, they have positive things to say about you \u2013 after all, you rescued them from being out of their comfort zone. Therefore, you\u2019ve succeeded at getting some pro-life education in, even though the setting is one where that\u2019s not welcome.<\/p>\n
With groups I have interacted with long-term, I\u2019ve found people who started with hostility to any pro-lifers become, through the course of time, accepting of me as being one.<\/p>\n
When there\u2019s an Audience<\/em><\/p>\nThen you have the person who you think is open to dialogue, because upon finding you have a particular position, she starts challenging you with questions. In this situation, you\u2019d be rude not to answer \u2013 but as soon as you do, she\u2019s offended and then squelches you, saying things such as that the conversation is over; basically, you have no right to express an opinion different from hers.<\/p>\n
This is always a serious bummer. It never feels at all right.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s not much you can do with such people. If you\u2019re alone with them, let it go.<\/p>\n
But if other people are around, pay attention to what they overhear (or, in the case of group e-mail exchanges, what they read). Some of them may benefit.<\/p>\n
And some of them may be a little sympathetic to you, because it was the other person who was rude. Your original person may be closed down, but the others may not be at all. They may even be interested in more dialogue when out of earshot of that original person.<\/p>\n
These techniques, drawn from my own experiences, are some ways of talking to people about the consistent life ethic. Consider your own experiences with these kinds of dialogues and find techniques that have worked for you. If you find a particular technique is especially effective, let others know about it!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Rachel MacNair Many times you\u2019ll find yourself with opportunities to dialogue with individuals or small groups who aren\u2019t familiar with the consistent life ethic. When these people are open-minded, these dialogues can feel very productive. When they\u2019re not quite open-minded, the dialogues are still important in the long run. We can run ads and… <\/p>\n
First: assure them you\u2019re pro-life<\/i><\/p>\nA lot of people think the consistent life ethic waters down the abortion issue by saying pro-lifers must devote a great deal of time and energy to various other issues such as the death penalty, war, and poverty; it\u2019s therefore a criticism of their work directed against abortion.<\/p>\n
But we say that putting abortion in with other issues of violence strengthens the case against it. Also, there are peace-and-justice activists and sympathizers who find the consistent-life approach of linking issues far more persuasive.<\/p>\n
If they cite cases of people using the \u201cseamless garment\u201d to water down the abortion issue, tell them that was a blatant mis-use. Mis-use isn\u2019t confined to the consistent life ethic; after all, people also twist ideas like freedom and equality to support the violence of feticide.<\/p>\n
Many have proposed that the consistent life ethic was invented to give politicians, especially Catholics, a pass when they support abortion availability, by declaring themselves for the nonviolent side on other issues. You can assure them that \u201cgiving a pass\u201d is the opposite of what consistency does. Instead, the consistent life ethic is a challenge: if they\u2019re good on opposing violence in other ways, why don\u2019t they oppose feticide also?<\/p>\n
Peace Advocates who aren\u2019t Pro-lifers (yet): <\/strong><\/h3>\nDe-Martian-izing<\/em><\/p>\nMake sure to bring up your pro-peace bona fides, preferably before the topic of abortion even comes up. They need to know you\u2019re a genuine peace-and-justice oriented person so that the stereotypes they may have of pro-lifers are broken at the start. They may think of pro-lifers as Martians, but you\u2019ve shown you\u2019re not a Martian before you reveal you\u2019re a pro-lifer.<\/p>\n
Back to the Comfort Zone<\/em><\/p>\nI have experience with a technique I call \u201cBack to the Comfort Zone.\u201d When you\u2019re with an individual or group and there\u2019s reason to bring up some criticism of abortion, something that fits the flow of conversation, then bring it up.<\/p>\n
But suppose you\u2019re in a situation where people weren\u2019t expecting it \u2013 for example, you\u2019re countering a misconception someone brought up without a clue that it\u2019s a misconception. Or you bring up your own personal experience in a group unaware that people have such experiences.<\/p>\n
Just as you see that they\u2019re starting to get uncomfortable, just as they appear to be wondering how to deal with this unexpected information, just as they\u2019re starting to process it as being perhaps a confrontation \u2013 then switch to another topic. One that makes them more comfortable and fits the flow of the conversation.<\/p>\n
What you\u2019ve done by bringing the topic up at all is that you\u2019ve taken them out of their comfort zone. You\u2019re not embarrassed, of course, because you\u2019re confident in your understanding, but they\u2019re<\/em> embarrassed.\u00a0 Then, before they have time to react, put them back in the comfort zone. Confrontation doesn\u2019t develop.<\/p>\nMy experience is that by the end, they have positive things to say about you \u2013 after all, you rescued them from being out of their comfort zone. Therefore, you\u2019ve succeeded at getting some pro-life education in, even though the setting is one where that\u2019s not welcome.<\/p>\n
With groups I have interacted with long-term, I\u2019ve found people who started with hostility to any pro-lifers become, through the course of time, accepting of me as being one.<\/p>\n
When there\u2019s an Audience<\/em><\/p>\nThen you have the person who you think is open to dialogue, because upon finding you have a particular position, she starts challenging you with questions. In this situation, you\u2019d be rude not to answer \u2013 but as soon as you do, she\u2019s offended and then squelches you, saying things such as that the conversation is over; basically, you have no right to express an opinion different from hers.<\/p>\n
This is always a serious bummer. It never feels at all right.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s not much you can do with such people. If you\u2019re alone with them, let it go.<\/p>\n
But if other people are around, pay attention to what they overhear (or, in the case of group e-mail exchanges, what they read). Some of them may benefit.<\/p>\n
And some of them may be a little sympathetic to you, because it was the other person who was rude. Your original person may be closed down, but the others may not be at all. They may even be interested in more dialogue when out of earshot of that original person.<\/p>\n
These techniques, drawn from my own experiences, are some ways of talking to people about the consistent life ethic. Consider your own experiences with these kinds of dialogues and find techniques that have worked for you. If you find a particular technique is especially effective, let others know about it!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
by Rachel MacNair Many times you\u2019ll find yourself with opportunities to dialogue with individuals or small groups who aren\u2019t familiar with the consistent life ethic. When these people are open-minded, these dialogues can feel very productive. When they\u2019re not quite open-minded, the dialogues are still important in the long run. We can run ads and… <\/p>\n
De-Martian-izing<\/em><\/p>\nMake sure to bring up your pro-peace bona fides, preferably before the topic of abortion even comes up. They need to know you\u2019re a genuine peace-and-justice oriented person so that the stereotypes they may have of pro-lifers are broken at the start. They may think of pro-lifers as Martians, but you\u2019ve shown you\u2019re not a Martian before you reveal you\u2019re a pro-lifer.<\/p>\n
Back to the Comfort Zone<\/em><\/p>\n I have experience with a technique I call \u201cBack to the Comfort Zone.\u201d When you\u2019re with an individual or group and there\u2019s reason to bring up some criticism of abortion, something that fits the flow of conversation, then bring it up.<\/p>\n But suppose you\u2019re in a situation where people weren\u2019t expecting it \u2013 for example, you\u2019re countering a misconception someone brought up without a clue that it\u2019s a misconception. Or you bring up your own personal experience in a group unaware that people have such experiences.<\/p>\n Just as you see that they\u2019re starting to get uncomfortable, just as they appear to be wondering how to deal with this unexpected information, just as they\u2019re starting to process it as being perhaps a confrontation \u2013 then switch to another topic. One that makes them more comfortable and fits the flow of the conversation.<\/p>\n What you\u2019ve done by bringing the topic up at all is that you\u2019ve taken them out of their comfort zone. You\u2019re not embarrassed, of course, because you\u2019re confident in your understanding, but they\u2019re<\/em> embarrassed.\u00a0 Then, before they have time to react, put them back in the comfort zone. Confrontation doesn\u2019t develop.<\/p>\n My experience is that by the end, they have positive things to say about you \u2013 after all, you rescued them from being out of their comfort zone. Therefore, you\u2019ve succeeded at getting some pro-life education in, even though the setting is one where that\u2019s not welcome.<\/p>\n With groups I have interacted with long-term, I\u2019ve found people who started with hostility to any pro-lifers become, through the course of time, accepting of me as being one.<\/p>\n When there\u2019s an Audience<\/em><\/p>\n Then you have the person who you think is open to dialogue, because upon finding you have a particular position, she starts challenging you with questions. In this situation, you\u2019d be rude not to answer \u2013 but as soon as you do, she\u2019s offended and then squelches you, saying things such as that the conversation is over; basically, you have no right to express an opinion different from hers.<\/p>\n This is always a serious bummer. It never feels at all right.<\/p>\n There\u2019s not much you can do with such people. If you\u2019re alone with them, let it go.<\/p>\n But if other people are around, pay attention to what they overhear (or, in the case of group e-mail exchanges, what they read). Some of them may benefit.<\/p>\n And some of them may be a little sympathetic to you, because it was the other person who was rude. Your original person may be closed down, but the others may not be at all. They may even be interested in more dialogue when out of earshot of that original person.<\/p>\n These techniques, drawn from my own experiences, are some ways of talking to people about the consistent life ethic. Consider your own experiences with these kinds of dialogues and find techniques that have worked for you. If you find a particular technique is especially effective, let others know about it!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Rachel MacNair Many times you\u2019ll find yourself with opportunities to dialogue with individuals or small groups who aren\u2019t familiar with the consistent life ethic. When these people are open-minded, these dialogues can feel very productive. When they\u2019re not quite open-minded, the dialogues are still important in the long run. We can run ads and… <\/p>\n