A war of words

As November approaches and Al "Let me tell you one more 'true story'" Gore and George "Did ya know that Texas is a big state?" Bush's camps continue to throw verbal spitballs across the political cafeteria, two terms have been thrown in my face on a daily basis. These two phrases, charged with emotional, religious and political energy, are by no means new to my ears. \nBut lately, I've concluded these words do not adequately delineate the stances they represent. These phrases are "pro-life" and "pro-choice."\nThere is no pro-life\nI write this because there is no rational man or woman, regardless of his or her abortion stance, who wants the death of an unborn child. If one is pro-choice, it does not mean that one is happy about abortion. It just means that one supports the existence of abortion as an option for a pregnant woman. \nBeing in favor of abortion does not mean that one is heartless, thoughtless or unfeeling. Proponents of abortion do value life, despite social stigma. Abortion is a sad, difficult and emotional process, in theory and in practice. Abortion is not an easy or careless choice for a pregnant woman or for proponents of the process.\nEven with the presence of the new abortion pill, a woman must undergo counseling and an information session, as well as signing multiple legal documents, before getting an abortion: It is not a snap decision.\nTherefore, there is no "pro-life," as life is something cherished and celebrated by proponents and opponents of abortion alike.\nThere is no pro-choice\nWhether abortion is legal, women still have reproductive choices. Those opposed to abortion are not by default in favor of oppressing women and sending them back into the proverbial kitchen. Despite public generalization, one does not have to be a) male, b) Christian or c) Republican to be an opponent of abortion.\nAs a woman, I have countless reproductive choices with or without abortion. My choices are the result of my instincts, education and faith: I do not presume to say they are "better" than the choices made by other women.\nThat said, I choose to remain abstinent until I am married. Abstinence is an option, a choice, for every woman; I'm not saying it is the "right" or "only" choice for everyone, but it is for me. By exercising this option, one could say I am pro-choice.\nShould I by some unforeseen circumstance become pregnant before I am married, I have the choice to either keep my baby or give he or she up for adoption -- two more ways I am pro-choice, even without abortion.\nAnd if I did not opt to remain abstinent, I have countless reproductive choices to prevent pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases, as my dear friend and safe sex guru Mark A. Price would be quick to point out even more options.\nEvery woman, regardless of her abortion stance, is therefore "pro-choice."\nWe have common ground\nThus far, name-calling, labeling, political pandering and violence have failed to move society forward in the abortion debate. Hypocrisy is alive and well on both extremist sides of the issue: Some abortion opponents have killed and threatened doctors, clinic employees and pregnant women in the name of "pro-life." They have likewise been detrimental to the quality of life for pregnant women at a time of physical, emotional and mental trauma in their lives.\nOn the other side of the fence, some abortion supporters use cheap shots and unfair claims in an attempt to sway female voters: These extremists unfairly portray those opposed to abortion as archaic, uninformed and chauvinistic. This immature behavior only strengthens social stigma and makes matters worse.\nI encourage both sides to explore the common ground that we have: Protecting women's health, encouraging adoption, ending violence and stopping unfair political pandering. By doing so, we can simultaneously protect women and unborn children, a desirable goal on both sides of the fence. We can all be pro-life and pro-choice.