Pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree on everything except the timing; i.e., the time to decide when to have a child is before conception, not after. Abortion is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded "baby killers," rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin.

Unfortunately, both sides are engaged in a propaganda war. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), writes in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion. "

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who object to being labeled "pro-abortion" and prefer to call themselves "pro-choice":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, 'What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?' In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

On the Democrats-For-Life e-list several years ago, Louis Shapiro asked: Why do supporters of abortion rights, who dislike being labeled "pro-abortion" and prefer to call themselves "pro-choice," object to "Choose Life" license plate frames as well, when the slogan capitulates to the other side by inferring "Choice" ?!

Women aren't out there getting "recreational" abortions, either. A Feminists For Life pamphlet, What Women Really Want, from the mid-1990s says:

"Since both sides of the abortion issue agree that no woman wants to have an abortion, it is a cruel hoax to call abortion a woman's 'choice.' No woman should be forced to choose between relinquishing life and career plans or suffering through a humiliating, invasive procedure and sacrificing her child. Abortion is a last resort, not a free choice."

We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion. Our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears, why should abortion be exempt? The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste? The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make *informed* choices. The informed consent or "woman's right to know" laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric. Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy: yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortions--a procedure which is never medically "necessary," and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent, etc. Nowak writes: "Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities."

Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to "keep abortion safe and legal," why does Planned Parenthood object to clinic regulations?

Again, both sides are engaged in a propaganda war.