Prior to the contentious commencement speech by President Obama at Notre Dame University, there was a quiet, yet equally contentious, conversation happening in the media. GOP recruiters kicked it off by suggesting that the party needs to be less ideologically rigid, and seek candidates who are, "ethnically diverse, female, less partisan and even supportive of abortion rights." (Bloomberg). In the face of that was the release of a new Gallup poll which shows that for the first time in eight years, more people identify themselves as "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". This poll excites the rigid nature of the hardline social conservatives who reject GOP recruiters as compromising on issues where they will never bend.

The Gallup poll says that 51% of Americans identify themselves as "pro-life", while 42% identify themselves as "pro-choice". The poll also demonstrates that 53% of Americans believe that abortions should be legal in "certain circumstances", 22% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 23% believe it should be legal in none. But what exactly does that say about the abortion conversation? Is this really a victory for social conservatives and a rallying cry for the Republican base?

The only thing I can say for sure is that pro-life advocates are really, really against abortions. Also, they are the ones who have thus far dominated the conversation, as evidenced by the terminology involved. To be against abortion is "pro-life," according to the common parlance. The contrast is called "pro-choice" which intimates that given the choice, women would choose.... I've also heard the term "pro-abortion" used to describe the choice position. "Pro-abortion" is a successful rebranding, a trigger word meant to inspire images of fetal carcass piles and sadistic evil doctors. Pro-abortion is actually a very absurd idea. What person in their right mind would say, "You know what this country needs? More abortions!" It's an obfuscation, as ridiculous as pitching life vs. choice. Why do I have to be anti-life to be pro-choice? The conversation is already dishonest. By labeling ourselves, we put up barriers that will prevent us from ever reaching commonality.

I am not pro-life or pro-choice. I recognize that life is precious and the decision to terminate a pregnancy is rarely, if ever, taken lightly. I recognize that a woman continues to have rights once she has conceived and that our government, as we've designed it, cannot force her to forgo those rights to be an incubator. I recognize that to be for choice means that at least some people will choose to keep the baby. I realize that to be for life means that we should probably enhance pregnancy prevention, not put arbitrary obstacles on adoption (unmarried couples or homosexual couples), and be committed to ongoing care for children born into poverty, i.e. welfare. That would prove that we are pro-ALL-life. I recognize that to be for abortion is nonexistent. The choice to have one is not taken anywhere near as lightly as one might suggest.

The White House transcript of the president's speech reads:

THE PRESIDENT: I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. And since --

AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

THE PRESIDENT: We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan's adage that we don't do things easily. (Laughter.) We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)

Later the president calls for, "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words." On this issue, on every social agenda that divides us with labels, pushing us right or left and forcing us to align ourselves, dig in our heels and attack with rhetoric... the president has it right.