“Culture of life”. President Bush parrots this phrase to express the importance of protecting the lives of the weak and the unborn.

No one would argue against protecting life. The rhetoric may appeal to all as a noble goal but Bush has solidified his opinion which does not take into account the complexities of the issues.

According to the president, promoting life entails banning certain abortion procedures and prohibiting federal funding for research that involves the creation or destruction of human embryos.

The implication that there is only one stance that protects life is insulting and a colossal oversimplification.

Everyone values life, but the shared aim is forgotten as people argue over their interpretations of what that exactly constitutes.

Saving lives manifests in many forms and the “debate” should not stop at the fetus. Those who support using stem-cell research to potentially discover cures have life in mind.

As do those from such disparate groups as those against the death penalty and war, those who call for stricter gun control laws and those who fight to combat poverty and hunger.

It is unfortunate that issues that are as complicated and significant as abortion have such hardened polarized sides that slogans and hostility replace any sensible debate.

A woman who contemplates having an abortion by no means makes such automatic distinctions due to an infinite array of circumstances that she must also consider.

Thus the issue presented in partisan black and white boxes is offensive to women and the rest of society.

Bush’s prescription only fortifies these opposing sides and it further erodes the environment in which real discussion can take place.

No one can present a valid argument to someone who has already made up their mind.

“Crossfire”-esque attacks accomplish zilch and the nation is in desperate need of finding common ground.

On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush called in to an anti-abortion march offering his support as can be read on whitehouse.gov.

While this received both scrutiny and praise, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech two days later that was well received by those on both sides of the political aisle by her appeal to reason and compassion.

She addressed the common goal of reducing abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. She simultaneously opposes government control over a woman’s body and recognizes the need for keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”

Her entire speech can be viewed at friendsofhillary.com.

She gives respect to the pro-life community for their moral reasoning and opens the doors for the traditional rival camps of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” to begin civilized discourse and work towards agreeable approaches for protecting lives.

She has also taken action in accordance to her words by co-sponsoring the Putting Prevention First Act.

She states the act would “increase support for family planning, ensure that heath care plans that cover prescription drugs also cover contraceptives, and expand access to emergency contraception, including for victims of sexual assault.”

The lesson to be learned from Hillary’s approach on abortion is that this nation needs to drop the dualistic mentality of right versus wrong and appreciate the complexities that each issue presents.

It is critical for people in the United States to unite in our collective values to form a political culture where citizens can have valid debates that are not judged on verbal wit but instead on objective truth.