No man’s land: in between pro-life and pro-choice

I’m not a big fan of Tomi Lahren — never have been. The 24-year-old ultra-conservative pundit from TheBlaze has made a career, if only for a few years, by belching her intentionally inflammatory opinions to arouse a like-minded right-wing audience. But last week, she finally said something of interest while appearing as a guest on “The View.”

“I am someone that’s for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say that I’m for limited government, but I think that the government should decide what women do with their bodies,” Lahren said. “I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and stay out of my body as well.”

Lahren’s words made me contemplate the current state of the abortion debate. I found myself asking some questions: Why must being pro-life be so sweepingly synonymous with being against women? Furthermore, is it possible to rationally reside somewhere in the middle between pro-life and pro-choice?

Now, this issue is obviously an incendiary one, promptly eliciting staunch reactions from both sides. I can already hear my mother’s concerned voice telling me to write about something less controversial. But shying away from difficult topics accomplishes nothing.

Sorry, Mom. Here we go.

Pro-life and pro-choice camps should find common ground in recognizing the importance of providing access to affordable health care and contraceptives for women. Abortions only make up a small percentage of female reproductive care. However, clinics like Planned Parenthood, which also provide countless services such as sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, cancer screenings and pregnancy tests, risk losing their funding. Often, these clinics provide much more than just abortions. They care for countless women who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford it.

I also think it is reasonable to give the health of the mother priority over the life of the unborn child. If the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger, abortion should be an option. These are important realities to mull.

But even taking them into consideration, the debate is not cut and dried.

Often, pro-life supporters can lose sight of the need for improvement in access to women’s health care and contraceptives that could prevent the need for an abortion in the first place. They fail to see that the pro-choice side isn’t necessarily just fighting for the right to have an abortion, but for the right to have control over their bodies and reproductive systems.

Likewise, staunch pro-choice factions conflate being pro-life with being anti-women.

Why?

Many people who are pro-life don’t innately object to a woman having control over her body. They object to the morality of abortion. More than anything, there is one, fundamental element at the crux of the argument that sometimes becomes lost, yet must always be taken into consideration: the sanctity of human life. Just because someone believes in protecting the life of an unborn child doesn’t necessarily mean they want to repress women.

Yet this stigma exists.

For example, at the Women’s March this past January, a group of pro-life women were discouraged from participating by the largely pro-choice crowd. In essence, their voices were de-legitimized, their choice to be pro-life was scoffed at. Should a woman’s choice to be pro-life not matter because it goes against the grain of the majority?

I don’t think so.

In this debate, a gray area exists. I think it’s possible to be both pro-life and pro-women: to want to protect the unborn life while simultaneously recognizing the worth and importance of expanding women’s rights. As a society, we have the responsibility to protect those who can’t protect themselves, including our most vulnerable, born and unborn. Being pro-life and pro-women does not — and should not — have to be mutually exclusive.

Brian Lee is a UF English senior. His column appears on Thursdays.