Article from Campus Paper Trying to Reframe Pro/Anti Choice

This is an article in the University of Alberta student newspaper. Just a little background info: prolifers and a prochoicers have been waging a war of posters against each other since the fall. Prochoice puts up a poster of stats about maternal deaths, prolife puts up a poster with a cute baby saying “is this the enemy?” on it. Prochoice puts up a picture of a coat hanger, prolife puts up a picture of a rubber boot (took me a sec to get the joke). Prochoice puts up a poster saying that illegal abortions kill women, prolife puts up a poster that says “fetus means ‘young one’ in Latin”. And then there’s all the ads in the school’s transit station courtesy of Prolife Edmonton with fetus pictures that imply that somehow the existence of feet makes a first-trimester fetus a full-fledged person.
While I am glad that the author wants to bring the prochoice/prolife factions together and get rid of the binary, I have to say that there are a couple issues I have with this article:
1) he says a woman’s right to control over her body should extend to when she has a relationship with a man. No contraception method is 100%, does this mean that by being in a relationship I am implying that I wouldn’t mind being pregnant?
2) yes, if it were easier for young and single mothers to get support and if they were less stigmatized, some women might have an easier time having a child and might not need an abortion. But what about women who don’t want to be pregnant at all? Even if you give up the baby, you still have to carry it 9 months and deal with all the related health issues and changes in your body.
3) Yes, if his mother aborted him, he wouldn’t be writing that article. Good for him that she didn’t. But does that mean a potential human’s right to possibly exist at some point in the future outweighs a woman’s say in what her body is used for by whom?