It is easy not to address the arguments by calling us truth-mongers.
"Each action has consequences. All approaches do not have equal value or equal appeal. And one has the power to choose."
All approaches are not equally good for the individual or society. But you are correct in stating that actions and choices have consequences. You have stolen my argument. The sexual act has consequences. The choice we have is to regulate the sexual act or regulate the outcome of that choice. The cowardly way is to regulate the outcome in my opinion. I am called sexually repressive, but it is far better than repressing the unborn. You see we have a choice as to how we engage in sex or whether to engage in sex. The unborn have no choice.
That argument cuts both ways.
Do not competing religions fight endlessly about who knows "the truth"? Are there not endless disputes about who knows what the Bible "really" says (referring only to disputes WITHIN the monotheistic religions)?
They seem good to me. I suggest you assemble as many such as possible and present them, first, to FR for critique and amendment, then to the general public (minus the over-heated rhetoric - "mad", "tyrannical", etc.).
If the Middle East doesn't blow up - and that's a very, very big if - I'd guess you'd have a chance to wield some influence.