Last week, Donald Trump stirred controversy in an interview with MSNBC by calling for “some sort of punishment” for women seeking abortions. This comment was immediately denounced not only by pro-choice organizations and the Democratic candidates but also a variety of pro-life groups, which stressed a view that women are the victims of abortions as much as unborn children are and that the pro-life movement has never sought to punish them. Fellow Republican rival Texas Sen. Ted Cruz accused Trump, who once called himself “very pro-choice,” of having never properly considered the issue.

Trump’s comments capture the worst the pro-life movement has to offer, demonstrating a desire to limit abortion not out of concern for potential human life but out of a desire to punish women for sexual behavior. Most people involved in the abortion debate are familiar with attempts to label abortion-seeking women with epithets to win a political debate through hatred and sexism. Trump, who has a long history of sexist behavior before and during his campaign, has become a voice for this sub-group in the pro-life movement.

Another incident occurred following Trump’s comments, although its lack of “Trump” resulted in much less press attention: Hillary Clinton, in condemning Trump’s comments, used the term “unborn person” while referring to the issue in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which led a variety of pro-choice groups to condemn her for using “humanizing language.” Clinton, with a 100 percent pro-choice voting record, was accused of being a traitor for seeing some nuance in the issue, a continuation of an attempt by the pro-choice lobby to reframe debate around abortion using objectifying language. This has led to some incidents, famously including the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League condemning a Super Bowl ad of a baby wanting Doritos, as well as attempts by some feminists to strip women of the right to sue if they lose an unborn baby to violent assault.

More and more it seems pro-choice groups dedicate themselves not to defending the right of women to make the ethical choice when handling unplanned pregnancies, but rather to pretend there is no hard choice to be made at all. What is it that is killed when someone gets an abortion? It seems that some within the pro-choice lobby think abortion deserves no more consideration than removing a wisdom tooth.

The logic for these groups is something I can understand. One side seeks to protect human lives, the lives of what they consider to be helpless babies. The opposing side is fighting for the equality of women. For me, this has always been one of the hardest political issues to address. Under both secular philosophical reasoning and my Catholic faith, I’ve always seen the humanity of unborn children. As a person with feminist convictions, I understand that to illegalize abortion is to create a society in which women will struggle to achieve real economic or cultural equality. Making the decision of which of these horrible options to inflict on society has always left me conflicted, and I struggle to articulate which side or policies I would support on this issue.

But I do know that both sides in this debate are motivated, at their best, by compassion: compassion to try to help women finally achieve real equality in our society, compassion for helpless human lives. There is a lot of demonizing that occurs in the abortion debate, as we all are inclined to see each other as callous killers or nutty fundamentalists. But both sides are motivated by an honest desire to protect a group that we care about. Last week reminded us of the worst each side has to show. But by reflecting on these events, and realizing that compassion is what should guide all of us on this issue, I truly hope we could at least stop the endless demonizing and learn to respect each other. There is no reason this debate has to be characterized by hate.

Jose Trejos is a Weinberg freshman. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].

The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.