Much of the space in this column between now and November 7 will be dedicated to the presidential race, the impact of which will last far into the coming century. Every week, Democratic and Republican columnists will try to woo you to their cause, and they will offer debate analysis and the postmortem on what, ultimately, this election turned. We on the editorial page look forward to a vigorous debate and energetic participation on the part of you, the letter-writing readership.

But in the meantime, I want to offer a plan to bring Americans together on what is one of the most bitterly fought issues in American politics today: abortion and reproductive policy.

On abortion, any form of dialogue between the two sides has clearly broken down. The rhetoric of the debate is extreme, with claims for a policy of no-questions-asked abortion on demand competing with calls for a complete ban on the procedure, even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger. Neither of these positions are or will become law, at least given the current Supreme Court makeup, and therefore I contend it is time for both sides to consider where they can agree on a common goal--fewer abortions--and the following plan to make that a reality.

The place to begin to agree is before conception. The abortion debate begins at that instant--no conception, no fetus to be aborted and hence no debate over the rights of the unborn. (Some religious groups do press for protection even of the unconceived and protest the use of contraceptives; I challenge them to accept a compromise on acceptance of contraception as essential to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and hence potential abortions.)

Americans are failing to reduce the number of abortions in large measure because our society does little to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The situation does not reach the extremes of Japan, where access to the pill is strictly limited and abortion is the most common form of birth control, but clearly abortion is an abused right in the United States.

To prevent unwanted conceptions, abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion forces should unite in bringing responsible, explicit sex education to schoolchildren, at the increasingly young ages, at the cusp of puberty, when it will still have an impact. The more explicit, the more real it is: Take the gory pictures of aborted fetuses off the street corners and into the classrooms, so students understand what is at risk when they choose to have sex. Bring teenage mothers into classrooms, as well as those who have had abortions, to talk about their experiences. Perhaps most important, mention abstinence but spend time describing in detail how condoms and other contraceptives work--and make them freely available.

The current programs, which tend to focus on sexually transmitted diseases and condom-wearing bananas, clearly aren't getting the message across. One can hardly believe the cautious programs we now have could make a difference, in the face of a culture that, in its music and movie theaters, glamorizes sex without responsibility. A strong endorsement of sex education and contraceptive use is not typical of anti-abortion activists, but a policy without it is irresponsible.

Second, both sides must work to streamline the system for adoption in the United States. There are families who have the courage and resources, financial and emotional, to open their homes to the children others do not want. We should work to encourage these families at every step of the way, from shortening waiting time to rewarding parents who adopt with health insurance and tax breaks.

In addition, "safe haven" laws--which provide immunity from prosecution to mothers who leave their babies in hospitals--save lives. Similar laws that provide those choosing between abortion and adoption a greater sense of confidence in the adoption process might encourage more women to make that choice. Abortion counseling can make those options known to the mother, but we must strengthen the nature of choices available to a pregnant mother to make that choice real.

Just as both sides should agree to agree on sex education, contraception and adoption, they must also learn better to agree to disagree on abortion policy. Whatever your conviction, the constitutional right to an abortion in the United States has been consistently upheld since the Roe v. Wade decision over a quarter-century ago. There have been fights about extremely late abortion procedures, about federal funding and about protesters, but the current court has made it clear that it will refuse to consider the basic right to an abortion as anything but fundamental.

To make progress, both sides must widen their focus and stop expending effort for symbolic victories on the fringes of the reproductive policy debate. Let us agree to work together, to lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies, to increase the percentage of adoptions and to put aside rhetoric to lower the number of abortions performed. Wouldn't that be a great accomplishment in this election year?

Adam I. Arenson '00-'01, a Crimson executive, is a history and literature concentrator in Lowell House.