I want to start by saying that this is not going to be a piece about the legality or morality of abortion, nor is this about my personal beliefs and opinions surrounding the subject; those are unimportant for the purposes of this article. This is about two specific pieces of rhetoric I see used in this debate, one on each side. It has to do with the names pro-life and pro-choice, and the use of "anti-choice" and "anti-life" to describe the respective sides.

There is a reason that both sides are called "pro-something." These two standpoints are not exactly opposites, so it is unfair to refer to either side as "anti-" anything. They start from different places. With an issue such as gun control, for instance, the central issue seems relatively clear. Does a person believe that there should be more government control over gun ownership or not? Abortion is not this way.

Sure, the core issue would seem to be whether or not abortion should be legal, but if that was really the main point of contention, then the terms would surely be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion." The reason there are two "pro-" sides to this argument is that the core issue is different depending on what side you fall on.

For pro-lifers, the core issue in this debate is the killing of unborn children and termination of what they define as life.

For pro-choicers, the core issue is a woman's right to choose the control she has over her own body, which includes the right to terminate what they do not define as life.

These core issues are independent of each other, and are the different foundations upon which their respective standpoints are built.

Pro-lifers, it is fundamentally unfair to refer to pro-choice supporters as "anti-life" or "baby-killers." You consider the embryo/fetus to be life, and therefore see abortion as murder, but you cannot label the other side of the debate as baby-murderers. If they defined life in the same way you do, they surely would not support the termination of an already living being. And you think they're wrong in their definition; I get that. But you cannot say they are against life when they are not, by their definition of life, supporting an institution that ends it.

Pro-choicers, it is fundamentally unfair to refer to pro-life supporters as "anti-choice." You see this as an issue of women's rights, specifically to our own bodies, and therefore see legal abortion as the safe way for women to choose what to do with an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy, but you cannot label the other side as sexist and against women's rights.

Pro-lifers do not see a pregnant woman's body as just her own. They see a woman's body that now is growing within itself a second body belonging to a second human being. By that standard, it is not that they believe a woman shouldn't have rights over her own body, but rather that she should have rights over only her own body, and not the body of another human being.

This is not an issue where one side believes unborn babies should not be murdered and the other side does, nor is it an issue where one side believes women should have rights and the other doesn't.

Using this false rhetoric demonizes the other side of the debate, no matter where you start from, and can only lead to a further divide between the two viewpoints, which helps no one. It's an uncomfortable, personal, and often emotional topic, and it may well never be solved, but setting up the other side as your polar opposite and mortal enemy of sorts isn't ever going to make it better.

Only compassion and understanding, from both sides, can start to open up honest conversation, and that starts with recognizing the differences between the fundamental issues seen in this subject. This is a debate that will always have two "pro-" sides and never an "anti-" and we may just need to learn to accept that.