By Dave Andrusko

Editor's note. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

I obviously do not know how many pro-abortionists read either TN&V or National Right to Life News. But clearly there are enough that if email conducted heat, my computer would melt.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about how we can and should response to those who vigorously (and heatedly) contest our views. It many ways it takes its inspiration from a conversation I was a party to yesterday.

My answer is an elaboration on one thought: First, and foremost, do not respond in kind. This applies regardless of whom the brickbats come from.

Over the years I have been on the receiving end of some scorching correspondence from people who clearly consider themselves far more pro-life than yours truly and who believe that their ideas and approaches are superior.

Using the biblical admonition that a gentle answer turns away wrath, I found that in most instances the real objection was something altogether different than what was expressed. By the end of most exchanges, at worst we agreed to disagree, at best they could see the validity of my perspective, and even occasionally agreed.

Some would say that's fine for disagreements "in the family," but question whether that extends to those outside the fold. I would argue it applies even more so for those (a) who consider themselves neutral, and (b) those who are actively on the other side.

I correspond with a half-dozen reporters and columnists. Probably half would insist they are strict non-partisans. This (for example), in spite of coverage of pro-abortion President Barack Obama that is so reminiscent of a school-girl crush it positively makes you cringe with embarrassment.

In our back and forth, I've tried to point out example after example of where they have simply taken Obama's promises of seeking "common ground" as gospel. I try to make the case that even the most cursory critical glance would show that he is like the general who not only wants to take back all the territory lost in past conflicts, he also wants to invade your country. I can't honestly say it's had any immediate effect, but I'm believe I am planting seeds of, if not doubt, at least skepticism. Our conversations would likely end instantaneously if I adopted a hostile tone.

But what about those who are on the other side? Let me be clear, I am not saying that keeping the conversation at room temperature will suddenly turn them into pro-lifers.

What I am saying is a variation of what I've said for years about "mainstream reporters" which I have tried to use to guide my response to them. It is virtually impossible to penetrate a common self-understanding –-a self-portrait that pictures themselves as a combination of almost disinterest seekers after truth and do-gooders. That's the material you deal with and if I don't take it into account conversations go nowhere.

I only know a couple of hard-core, hard-core pro-abortionists personally, but I read as much of their material as time permits. They insist they are genuinely concerned about women, which is one reason they so adamantly insist that any evidence that abortion is not good for women (increased incidence of breast cancer, poorer subsequent relationships, etc.) cannot possibly be true.

Conversions to our side of the magnitude of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, are few and far between. But lower-level converts are another matter.

However what if, as will almost always be the case, someone stays resolutely pro-abortion ("pro-choice")? Has it just been a waste of time?

No, and let offer two reasons why. First, like the effort to help the reporter who can't see his clear-as-day biases for what they are, it is useful to show pro-abortionists we aren't the cardboard caricature they've created in their mind.

The first time I was ever at the tender mercies of a cadre of pro-abortion feminists was in the 1970s. I was at the University of Minnesota, asking the steering committee of the organizations that distributed funds to student groups for money for our campus pro-life group.

They didn't even pretend to be impartial, or that they would consider my request for a nanosecond. It was an ugly scene that tested my mettle. As angry as I was, I never lost my cool or raised my voice.

Afterwards, one of the members of the jury came up to me while I was cooling my heels in the student union. She had no more use for my group's views than the rest of the sisterhood, but she went out of her way to apologize for the uncivil and unfair manner they had treated my request.  Second, you just never know. Over the next decade there will be new issues that make their way through the legislatures and up through the court system. To take just two examples, will all pro-abortionists, especially self-style "pro-choice feminists," be forever and a day comfortable with sex-selection abortions? With cloning human embryos who are brought into existence with a pre-existing expiration date ("clone-and kill")?

None of this suggests we retreat an inch, or that there is the need to. Our cause--finding a better solution to a crisis pregnancy than killing unborn children--is just, which means it is not dependent on public opinion polls. ( I say that even when the data is trending our way, as it is now.) I am more confident of my position today than I was 30+ years ago.

It does suggest that we always and forever keep the doors open. You just never know who might walk in next.