I’m not looking forward to Christmas with my family. I always buy the wrong gifts (“Sorry, little sister, I didn’t realize that the NKOTB was no longer cool.”) I always bring the wrong food (“Hi Mom, I made this great tofu/lentil casserole!”) And, I’m always sucked into the same argument: “So Jill, do you still work for that pro-abortion group?”

“Yes, I still work for a pro-choice, reproductive-rights advocacy group, Uncle Bill.”

Why do I feel the need to differentiate the terms “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice?” As a pro-choice advocate, I believe that each woman is capable of making any number of reproductive choices for herself and that she should have full access to whatever option she chooses. “Pro-abortion” suggests that I believe abortion is always preferable to childbirth, a ludicrous claim for anyone to make. Like most people who identify themselves as pro-choice, I believe that a woman, rather than politicians, should have the right to decide her best reproductive option: to prevent pregnancy, to terminate a pregnancy or to have a healthy childbirth.

At this point at my mother’s Christmas dinner table, my Uncle Chris will deliver (through a mouthful of mashed potatoes) the punch line that my family has been waiting for: “Don’t you know that abortion is a sin? Don’t you know that life begins at the moment of conception?”

I respect his belief. At the same time, it’s important to remember most of the world’s medical and scientific communities do not share the view that life begins at conception. In fact, dozens of distinguished scientists, including 11 Nobel laureates, have argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that “the only ‘consensus’ that can be said to exist among scientists on the question of when a human life begins is that science alone cannot answer that question. Science cannot define the essential attributes of human life any more than science can define such concepts as love, faith, or trust.”

Not only is the view that life begins at conception not supported by science, philosophical and theological communities also disagree with the concept. The assertion that a human being is created at the precise instant a sperm meets an egg equates a fertilized egg cell to a human being with mental cognizance, emotional complexities, and spiritual consciousness. To argue that the two have equal capabilities and worth devalues the real mystery of life: humanity.

This is not to say that I don’t respect my family’s opinion. I hold their beliefs with the utmost respect. They are, after all, the beliefs I was raised on. I only ask that those who hold this particular opinion do not make them a mandate for those who would disagree. When individual abstract beliefs are forced on all members of society, a social injustice occurs. Or, as the bumper sticker says, “If you’re against abortion, don’t have one.”

Rhetoric aside, my family and I share more overlap in this discourse than is readily apparent. We both want to reduce the number of abortions that occur in the United States. The main difference between us is the method we would each take to achieve that goal. My family and others who are morally opposed to abortion believe making abortion illegal will stop the procedure. Indeed, history has shown us that this method is ineffective; before abortion was made legal in 1973, not only were women having abortions, they were dying from the unsafe, illegal procedure to the tune of 5,000 per year (this number decreased fivefold after the Supreme Court legalized abortion through Roe vs. Wade). The pro-choice movement also strives to reduce the number of abortions, but by going to the root of the problem: preventing unintended pregnancy. We do this by working to increase access to family-planning measures like contraception and promoting sexuality education. These measures empower women to control their reproductive lives so they may prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

Ironically, “pro-life” advocacy groups actively work to limit access to contraception and sexuality education (for example, Wisconsin Right to Life’s No. 1 legislative priority is to pass Assembly Bill 546, which would essentially de-fund family planning clinics, most of which do not provide abortions.). People who hold such beliefs are often called “anti-choice,” because they oppose not only abortion but any measure that allows women to make their own reproductive decisions.

Such have been my positions in my family’s annual Christmas dinner/political battle. Both my family and myself have turned blue in the face trying to convince one another we are both completely right. This year, rather than raising my blood pressure trying to convince my family that abortion is not a mortal sin, I will leave it at this: Women or politicians: who decides?

Jill Malak is the co-chairperson of UW Madison Coalition for Choice and sits on the Board of Directors of NARAL Wisconsin. She is a senior at UW Madison.