With Republicans in control of Congress and poised to act on anti-abortion legislation, the abortion fight is about to get even nastier than it already is. A glance through this issue of the Register will prove that the debate over abortion isn't exactly starting from a state of calm and understanding.

On the front page, we have James Kopp's confession to shooting abortionist Barnett Slepian through the window of the doctor's house.

On page three, we have Joe Scheidler, who has never met with calm and understanding as he has pressed the pro-life side, finally getting his day in court on the outlandish charge that his pro-life ministry is a criminal conspiracy along the lines the RICO anti-racketeering law was designed for.

And on this page in the Letters section, we have a continued debate about what pro-lifers's strategy should be. Should it be that of the “hard-liners” — in the phrase Dinesh D'ouza used in his recent Register commentary — or should it be an “incremental” approach?

These three different stories tell different lessons about the state of the abortion debate — and what its future should be.

Shooting doctors. James Kopp says he meant to wound, not kill, Slepian. He's sorry that the doctor died but has not said he's sorry he shot him. Did Kopp save lives by shooting the abortionist? The answer isn't obvious. Terrorism can be very effective at obtaining its aims — witness the effects of Sept. 11 on the U.S. economy, still felt today. Perhaps Kopp's terrorist act achieved its aim.

But evaluating the matter can't simply be an exercise in counting the casualties on both sides. The problem of abortion runs deeper than that. It's a problem in the human heart, in a generation that has so desensitized itself to killing that abortion — which used to be reviled — has become the most common surgical procedure performed on women under 50.

Will more violence, more killing, make our generation's hearts more open to life? It couldn't possibly. It will only harden hearts further. Can gunmen convince the culture that abortion is wrong by killing? Certainly not. They only convince the public that the pro-life position is the wicked one, not the pro-abortion.

Criminalizing opponents' tactics. In the Joe Scheidler case — as in the case of the Federal Access to Clinics Entrances Act — we see the “if you can't beat ‘em, jail ’em” tactic that the pro-abortion side has adopted. Faced with a strong pro-life opposition that they apparently can't out-argue, they have found ways to shut down the opposition altogether.

The problem with this situation for pro-lifers is clear. But it's also problematic for the pro-abortion side. Those who try to win arguments by silencing their opponents are not likely to win their arguments for long. Totalitarian regimes have found that out the hard way. And in fact, pro-lifers are already starting to win: Recent polls for the first time show a majority of Americans are pro-life.

Hard-liners and incrementalists. Dinesh D'ouza argued in the Register that the pro-life argument could be won the way the antislavery argument was won: Lincoln ceded much to the pro-slavery constituency and this held them at bay while he quietly won key tactical battles that ensured slavery's days were numbered. Readers wrote to complain about this “incremental” strategy as applied to abortion — why should we cede anything in a life and death question?

“Great letter,” he said, when we shared one such letter with D'ouza. “In a sense she's right: Lincoln needed the abolitionists, even as his strategy was ultimately superior to theirs. They could not have gotten rid of slavery: He did.”

It's an important point, we think. The fight between hard-liners and incrementalists needn't drag the pro-life movement down. The two positions are complementary. One wouldn't make as much sense without the other.

The pro-life message needs to be pressed with urgency and effectiveness, particularly now that government is in the hands of the (formally) anti-abortion party.