Adding value to your beliefs by giving value to other's beliefs

This past week I got into a Twitter exchange with a person over a thread that began with a statement about gun rights and the taking of innocent lives in gun violence. The post had the video of Congressman Joe Kennedy III addressing the need for restrictions on gun ownership to prevent further taking of innocent lives.
The comment attached to the tweet said that you can't be against the taking of innocent lives and be pro-choice and pretty much dismissed his pleas for any new restrictions by labeling him as a hypocrite.

My comment was that it is these kinds of arguments that make anti-abortionists sound stupid.
I later said that this tactic to make every argument about abortion, diminishes the value of both issues (whatever the other issue may be at the time).

It's not the only bad argument that pro-lifers use.
If you want people to listen to what you have to say, it is also important to listen to what they have to say. Often times, the arguments we use make no sense to others because we are coming from such different perspectives. We need to find a common ground from which to base our views.

For example:
Not long ago I heard a pro-lifer state that liberals (you know all pro-choice people are liberals, right?) say that scientists have found evidence of life on Mars in the form of simple fossilized cells. How can they find a single cell on a distant planet and call it life but say that an unborn child isn't life?
The problem with this argument is that the person ascribed a belief to pro-choice people that doesn't exist. No one believes that an unborn fetus is a mass of dead cells that miraculously comes to life at birth. The argument has always been -- At what point does the unborn have individual human rights that need to be considered?

Changing the grounds of the debate to something that it isn't doesn't help your cause, nor does it give you credibility. As a matter of fact, it often leads to the belief that you have no valid point because you feel you need to cloud the discussion with statements that have nothing to do with issue at hand.

In the twitter exchange, I asked the question, "If I'm opposed to abortion, does that mean I have to be for stricter gun laws?"
It seemed like that was the logical conclusion from the you can't favor gun restrictions and be pro-choice. Funny, but my question was called non-sequitur.
I'm not sure how that works -- Rep. Kennedy can't favor stricter gun laws and be pro-choice, but I can be pro-life and want unrestricted gun laws.
Like I said -- it sounds stupid.

If you want people to listen to you, you have to speak their language and you have to listen to them, as well.

John <><