I think there's little honesty in shoving it down our throats, though I'm sure you can make an eloquent case for it.

I wouldn't make an eloquent case for it. But as was mentioned in other threads, there's something to be said for presenting the actual case that your opponents are making.

Arguments against contraception are based on conceptions of morality and sin, not a claim that unfertilized gametes are fully human beings with attendant rights. There is a segment among the deeply religious who believe it is the appropriate (and indeed necessary) role of the state to prevent sin and depravity as the majority might define it. I don't agree with that at all, but it's an argument that isn't reliant on gametes having genuine personhood.

Arguments against abortion often are based on a claim that a zygote, embryo, or fetus at any stage of pregnancy is a human person. Again, I won't make an eloquent case for them, since I don't believe that initial predicate. That presents a more complex situation vis-a-vis "shoving it down our throats." While there's a very solid argument that a group has no right to use the power of the state to prevent people from violating their specific religion's sense of morality or sexual sins, it is much harder to argue that it is inappropriate to use the power of the state to prevent human beings from being killed by other human beings.