By Dave Andrusko

I remember once a long time ago when I was verbally attacked in a debate situation for "not knowing" what I was talking about. I mean this guy was hot. He had persuaded himself that if I "knew better," if I "had been there," I would've agreed with him that there were many settings in which abortion was the "right" answer.

But rather than get angry in return, I remember being overwhelmed with a deep compassion for a guy who was so clearly on the brink of tears. I would like to pretend I've always been that noble when someone defending abortion came after me, but in this case there could be no other response.

For one thing, if you were to look to my extended family (I am the oldest of seven and have 56 first cousins), we have been through virtually every "hard case" that is traditionally offered as a reason for abortion. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an abortion in my family.

So, I did know of what I was speaking.

Of course, even if I/we hadn't had a first-hand exposure, or if there had been abortions, that would not mean that I had no right to speak. As I used to say in my debates with pro-abortion feminists (when women were not eligible for combat), if they were going to be consistent they should not expect their opinions on the war to be heeded. I never did get a coherent answer.

But the other reason I couldn't get angry was because it was frighteningly easy to see that he had been a party to an abortion. And, for all his anger, it was clear-–at least to me-–that he was deeply conflicted.

This is a long way of discussing the point of Part Two–a "web exclusive" that appears at Newsweek.com. The author, Jim Buie, ostensibly is writing about why there must be abortionists available to perform "late term abortions," a deeply misleading term. But beneath the surface, there was obviously much more at work.

He uses the experience of his older brother who, he says, was severely mentally retarded. I have no reason to doubt that his older brother's life presented a real challenge to his folks–-that "Jon caused my family severe emotional distress in his early years" before he was institutionalized. (Jon later died at age 52.)

As I read Jim Buie, however, I found it hard to believe that he meant what he said, or at least implied. That his family would have been better off had his uncle actually done what he fantasized about in a "rather macabre story about how he was tempted to let the baby who was wreaking havoc in his beloved sister's home 'accidentally' slip from his arms while swimming in the ocean and drown, so that the family's emotional collapse could be avoided."

For instance, Buie concedes, "I doubt they [his parents] would have chosen abortion even if it were an option" in 1949. And he also acknowledges the "irony" that "if Jon, who was at the time my parents' only son, hadn't been severely retarded, I might not have been conceived. So in one sense, I owe my very life to him."

Buie seems to be most angry with what he says is "the tendency to romanticize, sentimentalize and idealize" the lives of children with disabilities. But later in the story he talks about "At the same time, it is very disturbing that until recently, the majority of Down-syndrome fetuses were aborted without expectant mothers receiving proper information or support." (In fact, it is overwhelmingly likely that most expectant mothers are still told the same lies about Down syndrome.)

So, although his column is filled with anger, I remember as I read it that there must be a "rest of the story." And sure enough, there it was on his blog.

Tragically, his views have "evolved," Buie writes. "I was raised to believe that my brother's life had a positive impact far beyond his own tragic circumstances. I articulated those beliefs in my eulogy to him at his memorial service in 2002. His life was a testimonial, I said, 'to the concept that we, none of us, in this life ever fully knows the impact we have on other people.' Every life, even that of a severely retarded individual, makes more of a difference, I said, than any of us realizes."

If that wasn't enough to set you back on your heels, Buie adds, "As the parent of an adopted son, I also know that there are thousands of couples yearning to be parents and waiting for years to adopt. So it makes little sense to me that millions of abortions are performed if many babies could easily be adopted."

I have no show-stopper conclusion, just the obvious one. People can angrily come after you (as they once did me), or pen a story that seems to be nothing more than an infomercial for aborting "imperfect" babies out of decidedly mixed motivations–or out of a deep confusion and unresolved feelings.

Our task is never to respond in kind, but to help them work through their conflicts, to allow them to see that often times their own values are at war with the anti-life conclusions they have drawn.

Not always, maybe not even often, they will come to see that choosing life, while difficult, is always the right answer.

Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part One