Beyond Pro-life and Pro-choice.

• Author: Marks, John

Abortion has become a no-holds-barred battle between unyielding foes. As in all wars, propaganda merges with reality, and demonization of the enemy substitutes for communication.

As someone who works in the field of conflict resolution, I see no possibility of negotiating a settlement on the basic issue of abortion as long as the pro-life side sees abortion as murder and the pro-choice side believes that women have a fundamental right to choose. There does, however, seem to be a way to drain poison from the issue and, in the process, improve the quality of our national discourse. Instead of--or in addition to--pro-choice and pro-life supporters confronting each other on the legality of abortion, let them come together around frameworks that both can support.

Why not, for example, work together to prevent unintended pregnancies? Consider the case of Reproductive Health Services, a St. Louis abortion provider that became a national symbol after the 1989 Supreme Court case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. From the opposing perspectives of abortion supporters and foes, Reproductive Health Services was viewed as either a place of refuge or a killing field.

Yet until 1993, Reproductive Health Services was not only an abortion provider. It also included an adoption agency, called Adoption Associates, that worked closely with area pro-life supporters. If a pregnant woman came to Reproductive Health Services and expressed a desire during counseling to give birth and put her baby up for adoption, Adoption Associates was likely to refer her to Our Lady's Inn, a Catholic home for unwed mothers. Our Lady's Inn, whose staff and directors were fervently pro-life, provided advice, pre-natal support, and residential care. Adoption Associates arranged placement with a family.

One would have thought that, irrespective of their differences, both sides could agree this was a good thing. After all, from the pro-choice point of view, women faced with unwanted pregnancies were given another option to choose; from the pro-life point of view, each baby born and adopted was a life saved.

In fact, neither much liked this cooperative arrangement. People associated with both Adoption Associates and Our Lady's Inn were accused of the same transgression: consorting with the enemy. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers mirrored each other when they said, in effect, that working together on adoption makes the other side look reasonable. Demonization is not possible if the...