...and I apologize for reading you wrong. You do fine with words, and say a lot with far less of them than I typically do, pal. Thank you again for that spirited defense!

It is true that you cannot assuage hate. The people I think both pro-choicers and the anti-choicers can reach are the many who are "on the fence" about the issues. They tend to be the quietest bunch out there, and because the haters are extremely "loud", this creates the illusion that society is 95% antis and maybe 5% pro-choice leaning.

Not true, actually. The fence-sitters, unlike the willfully ignorant and/or hateful, are not slaves to emotion and can be persuaded by a combo of logical arguments presented effectively and respectful behavior. The major challenge for pro-choicers is to get past all the censorship barriers in front of us by the corporate press and their dependence on keeping the paying sponsors happy, who marginalize the more controversial research and researchers who do not at least partially toe the party line; and the ruthless behavior of the antis & their quickness to push the flag buttons to get unpopular opinions that violate "community standards" removed from social media. Anti-choicers have less difficulty navigating the press even though they have equal difficulty in dealing with the hate squad. This creates the illusion that their stance on things is inherently more effective.

Strictly speaking, it is more effective due to the biased nature of the sponsorship-beholden media that controls most of the public discourse, and its favoring of information that is good for business. The advent of WordPress and its open source nature is slowly turning the tide, however. It has, for instance, allowed Tom O'Carroll to maintain a very popular blog that is an immensely important source of information and discourse to researchers and scholars who may be fence-sitters and want to both find objective information and hear more than just the anti-choice POV for a change. At this point in time, you won't see Tom allowed to write a column for or submit articles to a widely read mainstream online paper like Salon, but such a possibility is open to anti-choice MAPs and researchers.

If you can fool the public into thinking your POV is the only POV out there, then you obviously have an advantage over the less popular alternatives.