The pro-abort next tries to write me off because I am religious - in particular, because I am a Christian in the Roman Catholic tradition:

"Right now, you have either deleted this message or our smiling while shaking your head, thinking, `What a sad case.  What a poor, poor soul.  I hope he is saved come Judgment Day.  I hope some day he lets Jesus into his heart, and joins Him and his hosts of angels in Heaven to bask in eternal life and salvation.'  And that it what is said [sic] about people like you.  You can't have a debate with people like you, because you reject all that is logical and empirical.  To you, things are the way they are because you believe them to be true or moral or right or perversely just.  Your sense of reality is dictated by a very narrow and rigid discursive ideology that rejects dialectical analysis and introspection.  In short, you believe everything you think and say and live by to be the `truth.'  You also equate faith with truth, which is a dangerous and ultimately sobering mistake."

Whoa!  First off, all the fancy language in the world cannot cover-up the sheer ridiculousness of this dude's so-called argument.  In reality, my critic is aptly describing his own philosophical outlook on life - not mine.  It's called RELATIVISM, i.e. what is "true" for one person is not necessarily "true" for all.  

I don't believe everything I say and live by to be the "truth."  I am a sinner as much as anyone else.  

But what I do recognize is that there is objective Truth - a sense of right and wrong that is universal.  I do believe that this objective Truth comes from the Creator and that it is written on the hearts of mankind.  This "Natural Law" is discoverable through our God-given intellect as well as through Divine Revelation.  

Those who buy into the "pro-choice" philosophy implicitly reject the Natural Law's conception of rights, including the right to life.  In the fantasy-land that my obviously atheistic pro-abortion critic lives in, an unborn baby can be a blessing or a curse depending upon one's perspective and it's ultimately up to the mother of this unborn child to interpret the situation as she sees fit and act accordingly.  This is because relativists reject the universal Truth that there is an inherent right to life given to human beings by their Creator.  

Thus, in reality, one cannot have a true debate on the abortion question with people like my pro-abort critic because he lacks a functioning conscience.

Nonetheless, my pro-abortion critic's rant is instructive in just how delusional hard-core, unrepentant pro-abortion zealots truly are:

"I could categorically annihilate the litany of miscreant and laughable conjectures you make in your ridiculously sophomoric blog.  Yes, I read it with the intention of being entertained.  Instead, after reading your material, I felt physically ill, resulting in this emotion we humans call anger.  Vitriolic anger, you might say.  Well, Andrew, if you're not angry, then you're not paying attention.  But you're right in a way.  It takes more than anger to achieve your goals.  Vitriol and rhetoric only get you as far as the picket lines with people holding signs with bloody fetuses, chanting maniacally outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.  Anger without action is the road to a life of futility and vapidity that threatens to engender the most dangerous of all mindsets and lifestyles: complacency.  I'm sorry, Andrew, but I sometimes I fly off the cuff a little bit.  I let my anger show.  But please don't confuse me for the run of the mill soapboxer that you so beautifully personify.  A law degree from some Catholic bible beating, conservative law school does not make one a good lawyer. . ."

Thus, we learn from my pro-abort critic's "conclusion" that he and his fellow lovers of abortion are angry with us pro-lifers because we expose the Truth about abortion - a Truth that they refuse to recognize exists in the first place.  

But somehow I suspect - in their heart of hearts - they do recognize that this Truth exists.  Otherwise, why would my critic be so angry as to feel "physically ill"?  Perhaps it's because very deep down he knows that abortion is morally wrong - and not just for some but for all.  

Perhaps.  

But unless, or until, my critic and his fellow pro-abortion zombies wake-up from their slumber, it is futile to try and convince them to support the pro-life position.    

In the final analysis, the pro-life movement's success lies in convincing the majority of Americans who are believers, and who do have functioning consciences, that their general "feeling" that abortion is morally wrong should necessarily translate into its prohibition under the law.

About the author: Andrew Shirvell, Esq., is a pro-life citizen activist who writes a weekly column that is published every Thursday for RightMichigan.com in which he focuses upon Michigan pro-life issues. He is the co-author of "Michigan Law and the Scales of Justice, Life in the Balance," a white paper published by Americans United for Life (2007).  Shirvell attended Ave Maria School of Law - Ann Arbor, where he served as president of the school's Bioethics Society, from 2004-2005.  He also served as president of Students for Life at the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, from 2000-2002.