remind us all that there is humanity in both perspectives; that, at some time or another, most of us have lived "in the grey" area when it comes to reproductive rights. My own grey area came when I became pregnant purposefully with my second child, my daughter, while working at an abortion clinic. For awhile I had a hard time reconciling the growing life inside me with some of the more disconnected discussions around abortion I was having as the communications director for the center.

And that truly personal experience, as difficult as it was, helped me to see that there are not, as you say, two disparate and conflicting sides to this but deeper levels of thinking and feeling that cannot solely be defined by the phrases "pro-choice" or "pro-life."

This should be required reading for everyone involved or in some participating in the reproductive health and rights dialogue!

Dear Anna
Your change of heart was sad to read about.

Anna:

I'm certain to be pilloried for saying this, but your heartfelt journey to me defines what it means to be pro life (lower case p and l) because you brilliantly speak to the humanity in all of us, and the capacity each has to caricature and dismiss others. The real choice each person makes is whether or not to listen to their heart, or simply follow whatever crowd you fall into. You not only listened to your heart, but by sharing your experience, will touch many others.

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

...for the kind words, Amie and Scott! This was a cathartic piece to write.

dfk is right to note a feeling of sadness. Though perhaps he or she meant their comment in a very different way, I've been thinking about how transformation is neccessarily difficult. We tend to fight it every step of the way. It certainly is sad to grow apart from ourselves, to become something new, to call ourselves by different names. It's sad to lose pieces of our very own person.

But of course, the sadness is vital to transformation, and it is worth it. It's all part of the process. I feel wonderful to be where I'm at now, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I'm also eager (and scared!) to see what comes next...

I can see that it's sad to move away from our more reactionary opinions, but for me, making the move was mainly sad because I regret being naive and I regret how frustrating it is to know and love a lot of people who just have simplistic, judgmental politics. A lot of people don't want to be hateful, but support hateful viewpoints. I think a lot of anti-choicers are in denial about some basic issues, like the pain of adoption or the misanthropy behind the extreme anti-sex views that motivate the leadership of the anti-choice movement. Your piece makes me see ways to reach out to the misled, but I don't think we're going to get very far with people like the 'sad' commenter here, who is most likely closed off to any information that could mess with his/her misogynist beliefs about reproductive rights. Still, you give me hope that some people are reachable.

I tend to remain quiet on this issue too even though I feel strongly as well. There's so much anger and hate over this, one of the most polarizing of social issues. I am Pro-Life. And I am Pro-Choice. And I'm not Anti-Abortion, or Anti-Choice. No one is Anti-anything - that's just how the other "side" paints them. Everyone is trying to be as human and as loving as they can as they can. I identify with the goals and hopes and loves of everything that cares about these things, but I will never identify with the fight against or demonization of other caring people, and that's who we all are. I know the things I think are right and my beliefs don't need to fit into anyone's categories.

I have yet to see any evidence to support the view that abortion involves the taking of human lives. (e.g., I've seen part of "Silent Scream" on public access TV but dismissed it and changed the channel because the narrator's comments often didn't match what actually was happening on screen.)

I think people who view abortion as bad should start asking questions as to why they think it is bad, who is telling them it is bad, and what the real agendas of the people propagandizing against abortion might be. So much of anti-abortion sentiment is based on accepting what people have been raised with or told in their churches.

This was a good article except for the part where she compares controlling one's own body to slavery...huh? Quite the opposite is true--slave owners controlled their slaves bodies, deciding when they could "breed" and when they could not--which is how the slave owners saw it. I have read that slave women learned to use cotton root bark as an abortificiant to not have children born into slavery. The right to control one's own body is paramount to this issue! Though I do feel there are grey areas--I am not for abortion for just any reason after the first 4 months(only to save the life of the mother or if the baby will die at birth). As there will always be religious disagreement over when we are fully human and we are supposed to have separation of church and state, we need to go by what we know from science--brain activity is not measuarable until about the 4th month of gestation and that is the sign we use to decide when someone hadsat the other end of spectrum--so that seems like the best place to draw the line for the rights of the mother and the rights of a potential new person.

RH Reality Check, For the intro-teaser to the above article you wrote, "Many pro-choice Americans opposed abortion at some point in their lives." I would have said "many pro-choice americans opposed legal abortion at some point". I think this is actually a critical distinction and warrants a quick correction. You can be pro-choice and support or oppose abortion. Being pro-choice just means you favor legality, that you feel it's up to the woman to decide.

It is a great relief to see liberal feminists starting to discuss the true nuances of the pro choice/anti abortion
dialogue.
While I did not follow all the somewhat convoluted rationalizations the author presented, I did get the gist of her position--that there is a tremendous amount of middle ground in this dialogue.
Just as she changed her position on abortion so have I.
I used to be pro choice, but after watching anti abortion
advocates discuss partial birth abortions and the hopelessly
biased-jockeying-for-political-advantage rhetoric promulgated by feminists in reference to the US Supreme Court nominations, I've become anti abortion. There is no question that pro choice advocates and liberal feminists have totally misrepresented many aspects of abortion. I constantly get advocacy emails that I know are pathetically and catagorically misleading and downright lies.
Regardless of what your position on abortion or any other subject is--the wilfull misinformation, disinformation, innuendo and lies really must stop. Unless we discuss this subject from an honest open dialogue we as a nation will continue to be polarized.
The argument: "my body, my choice," has no merit under our current legal system. It is a felony to attempt to commit suicide--and in doing so you are hurting no one but yourself.
It is a felony to take drugs (and this is wholely and solely involving just the individual) and especially when one is pregnant. A woman can conceivably be prosecuted because she endangers not only herself-- but when pregnant her unborn child. Then of course there is the sticky issue of the donor sperm--(i.e. the man).
Under current law, a man inpregnating a woman is legally responsible for this child until the child is emancipated. This can be up to 21 years of age. And, while the law is very clear on this matter, there are no provisions for giving males any voice or power in this issue--even if he has consistently taken the position that he does not want to have children, he is still responsible. Furthermore, I find it laughable that feminists and pro abortion advocates rail against men shirking their biological responsibility while at the same time deny they have any say whatsoever in the matter--talking about having your cake and eating it too!!!
The argument against their protestations when they are informed--sometimes years later (when the state asks them to ante up not only child support payments but penalties and arrearages)is that "if you have sex, then you must assume that you want a child" --why cannot the same standard be used with respect to women??? Well, according to pro choice advocates: "It's not the same."
If a man has no choice in this matter (because of the overriding concern for the welfare of the child) than why should a woman (who is only playing host to a biological conception) be given different treatment?
And lastly, it has not gone unnoticed that there is an enormous amount of money and power associated with the abortion rights issue and billions of dollars at stake--mostly to pro choice advocates-- providing anything from medical services to counselors and other assorted advocacy groups that feed on grants and government subsidized monies.
Furthermore note that 90 per cent of those obtaining these lucrative funds are coincidentally women that also happen to have strong feminist ideologies--my point is that we need to get the carpetbaggers that financially benefit and feed on this issue out of the general discussion.
I agree with the author in that this dialogue must change but until the dialogue does change many of us that long for some middle ground will be forced to take a negative position on this issue simply because the alternatives are totally unacceptable.

Thank you Anna,

I appreciate you sharing your journey, your words serve as reminder of the diverse views that exist with pro-choicers. The pro-choice movement includes those both accepting and personally against abortion, with the bottom line agreement of not wanting government to interfere in a woman's intimate decision and beliefs - government imposing on the woman alone the sacrifice of bringing life into this world. Although in the courts and legislatures the arguments have necessarily been along established legal arguments, you re-emphasize the necessity of seeing the importance of reproductive freedom through many frames and very importantly, challenging us to approach those who disagree with us as friends.

A great article which shows that the issue of reproductive rights in America is not black and white, despite what some people want you to believe. People are smarter than we give them credit for. They analyze and think critically and apply their own life experiences. The polarization of the issue by anti-abortion advocates serves no one. It unceremoniously shoves people into categories and camps and makes them feel that it's "us vs. them". Such is the spirit of American politics, and it's a true shame, because really when it comes down to it, we're all in this together.

I used to be anti-choice as well, Anna. That all changed in 2003, when I realized that the "pro-lifers" were actively engaging in a war on women. Here is the link to my article:

http://aikenareaprogressive.blogspot.com/2007/12/my-biggest-mistake.html

Anna wrote:
.
"But that day didn't come until after I'd met people -- surprise! -- who'd chosen abortion. It came after my school friends became parents; after I began having sex and selecting birth control; after I experienced and witnessed sexual harassment.
.
In short, it happened after pro-choice rhetoric took a human shape. I saw those I loved. I saw myself."
.
Having the opportunity to have caring, supportive relationships with peers who had chosen abortion was critical to Anna being able to effectively empathize with people who had chosen abortion. And she used the word “people” and “human” to describe these peers – and as many advocates these days would have more descriptively said “women”, one has to wonder if some of the people she met who had chosen abortion might actually have included some men who played an appropriately supportive role.
.
It's interesting Anna seems to have identified with caring relationships as critical but she doesn’t directly use words very much like "opportunity" and "empathy" and "caring", although she uses words that suggest opposite qualities, like "phony", "cheap", and "careless".
.
Anna probably would agree that those words like "opportunity" (or maybe "authenticity") and "empathy" and "caring" would apply to her transformational experiences, but it's interesting that she didn't use words like that -- and many young people don't use them. Maybe these are qualities which are increasingly more conspicuous in their absence than their presence, and if one hasn't experienced them it's hard to find words to describe them. It's easy to overlook the need to use words like these which evoke what Carol Gilligan called an ethic of care, but if we don't, it's something the anti-choice opposition seizes on to make women who choose abortion and the men who are involved seem all the more isolated and selfish in their choices.
.
We think that having the "opportunity" to "empathize" and "care" for people -- women and men -- who have to deal with unintended pregnancy is critical to developing a sense of pro-choice empathy and functional caring skills. It's important in many of the same ways for a woman and her significant other (generally a man) to get support from their peers when they deal with an unintended pregnancy, whether or not the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term. But with better contraception, less accessible abortion, later marriages, and a more competitive, commercialized culture, there are fewer opportunities for young people to have those experiences. No wonder the polls have changed over the years, especially for young people, who seem at least by poll responses less empathetic and supportive of abortion access.
.
We are also very glad that you discussed some of the problems and limitations of pro-choice organizing which includes opponents of abortion, or individuals who support regulations which restrict access to abortion. This has been a needless appeasement which some pro-choice activists have clearly made going back to the Carter administration, which has lead today to the (seemingly) intractable support for public funding of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which in many conservative communities, especially conservative middle-class and working-class suburbs and rural areas, are the best-known (but very biased) facilities offering free pregnancy tests and prenatal care, mostly to young and poor women. They've taken over much of the market that public health clinics were supposed to serve, and did serve from their development in the 50s and 60s until the flattening of Title X funding as adjusted for inflation, and the increase in funding of CPCs and similar agencies from the late 80s to date.
.
We think that pro-choice movement would be better off, at least where organizing young people is concerned, if it were to focus more on giving young people opportunities to help support and counsel other young people on reproductive choice options, including an agenda which is responsive to the needs of young and poor mothers -- as many reproductive health groups participating in the conferences sponsored by National Advocates for Pregnant Women have done, for example. While those groups -- even the ones who get some public funding -- can't completely take the place of public health clinics, they at least give people who want to provide accessible, comprehensive reproductive care -- and not only medical care, but perhaps social services and legal services as well -- some of the best opportunities in the country to develop those caring relationships and play a role in changing government policy that affects those agencies as well.