"Consider the possibility you are making this up."
How about not suggesting that I'm lying, Charles?
I think 13 years of full-time pro-life work and talking with thousands of pro-choice people gives me more authority to say what most pro-choice people have preferred to be called than a pastor has.
Not every pro-choice person prefers that label; many, like me, don't like any labels. But I'll tell you what I see happen when pro-life people call them something else, like "pro-abortion" or "pro-abort." They say, "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice."
"Unfortunately, your only goal seems to be tactical. It is not authentic dialogue. It is not love."
I don't think you know me well enough to accuse me of faking love, especially from one Christian to another. I think this will probably be my last reply to you.
"Jesus commanded us to love each other. He never commanded us to be correct."
I agree. But it doesn't follow from that that we shouldn't try to have correct opinions, especially about important moral issues.
Take torture for example. I'm very opposed to waterboarding, even though some of my Republican friends are not. I think it's a human rights injustice.
If I was talking to someone who disagreed with me about that, it would make sense for us to talk about what waterboarding is, why I think it's wrong, why they think it's justified in some cases, etc. It would not be helpful to just throw up our hands and say, "Well, Jesus never commanded us to be correct." I think Jesus would want me to advocate for people who are being tortured or killed without sufficient justification.
"...not to mention hurtful to Christ and a setback for his kingdom."
Why should I take blog post suggestions from somebody who actually thinks I'm hurtful to Christ and setting his kingdom back?
"In the Anabaptist/Quaker sense, [indifference] means accepting the idea that my opinion may not be the word of God."
The way you're using "indifference" is different then how I was using it. You seem to be using that word to mean "open-minded." If so, we agree that open-mindedness is a virtue.
I've already communicated about me being open-minded, and yet you end your comment with this dig: "But when I was your age I was certain of my positions too!" You're either not listening to what I say or not taking what I say seriously. For that reason, I don't think it's a good use of my time to keep debating you in these comments.
God bless, Charles.

#1: I agree. I think I've sufficiently responded to your other comments regarding life-threatening pregnancies. Go check out the link I posted.
#2: I agree that people are more complicated than the labels we give them. However, it's awfully hard to write about the issue without ever using labels. So when I use labels I tend to use the ones that both sides prefer, and be purposeful about not using overly negative language to describe either side.
#3: I agree. What's your point?
#4: This is where we disagree the most. I hate apathy. Even if the "pro-choice" side is right, this issue is important. It affects real people.
We should desire that whichever side has more truth on their side wins public opinion, and that laws will reflect that. If you think teaching pro-life people to have more friendly dialogues is "deceptive" then that's probably a big enough difference between us that it's not worth talking. We are on different planets when it comes to our views about truth and dialogue.
#5: I agree that humility and open-mindedness are very important qualities for both sides to have. And I agree that I might be wrong about abortion. I think I have really good reasons for believing I'm right, but I'm not 100% positive in the way that I'm 100% positive that 2+2=4 in a base 10 system.

I would say that focusing first of all on the father's responsibility for the child he procreated , may help with reducing the number of unborn children killed by their fathers. How a father kills his unborn child? Easy...by starvation....if the father does not provide food/ medical and emotional care for the child he just procreated, then, he, the father is guilty of killing his child.
The mother carries the child in her belly, while the father is RESPONSIBLE for providing the food.
Just a thought.....

For example, pro-choice people often use this slogan: “My body, my choice.” But Timothy Brahm and Steve Wagner from Justice For All have noticed that that could be referring to at least four pro-choice arguments:
In your view, what's the most effective response to #2?