In a recently published op-ed, Grace Kavinsky accused WU Students for Life and the Abortion Dialogue Academyof lacking empathy toward rape survivors and denying the humanity of women. Although her intentions are surely well-meaning, as a woman, I am hurt by her overreaching and inaccurate claims, and I would like to refute these unfair allegations.

In Kavinsky’s article, she says, “It is our burden to look closely at our world and investigate the forces that shape who we see as human—whose rights move our consciences and rouse us to action and whose don’t.” This incredible statement is actually what WU Students for Life seeks to accomplish. We have examined our worldviews and come to the conclusion that unborn humans deserve to be protected. We have not ignored the difficult circumstances that many women find themselves in; we recognize that tragic circumstances such as rape must be dealt with carefully. Yet by having a pro-life opinion, we are not unempathetic toward women but instead empathetic towards both women AND unborn humans.

Our club recognizes that our pro-life opinion is a difficult one for many to accept. Opposing abortion, even in the terrible situation of rape, is certainly controversial and upsetting to many. The difficult moral topic puts us in the uncomfortable position of reconciling the autonomy of sexual assault survivors with the autonomy of unborn humans. However, in the interest of examining this issue, we believe that it is counterproductive to cite the horror of rape as a reason to nullify discussion about unborn humans. I think the author would certainly be offended if we stated a pro-life equivalent and cited the value of the fetus as a reason to nullify arguments about a woman’s bodily autonomy. Clearly, this would unreasonably ignore legitimate arguments and stifle productive discourse.

We recognize that abortion is an incredibly complicated topic, and therefore, our society needs to ask, discuss and answer the nuanced questions about abortion without fear of unjust accusations of bigotry. When does life begin? Do fetuses deserve legal rights? Do the bodily rights of a woman override a fetus’s “right to life”? These and other questions must be answered to get to the bottom of this discussion. However, we cannot make any progress if that discussion never happens.

One of Kavinsky’s central claims is that our use of thought experiments in discussion is a “detached calculus” that fails to look at women as people. In reality, thought experiments are the basis for many intellectual conversations, as any philosophy student can attest. In her article, Kavinsky says, “I won’t descend into the realm of thought experiments and fetal diagrams in which the ADA resides.” While I assume that Kavinsky’s activism is motivated by good intentions, this is an eloquent way of saying, “I will not even consider your arguments.” Washington University is an intellectual institution, and we disagree with the assertion that thought experiments and objective scientific diagrams are a “descent” into a “detached calculus.”

The concept of common ground is the basis of ADA and WU Students for Life. We firmly believe that people on the pro-choice and pro-life sides hold much more common ground than society leads us to believe. While we may come to different conclusions regarding abortion, there are many things on which we all agree, like aiding impoverished women, fighting societal judgment of pregnant teens and, of course, denouncing the atrocity that is rape. Kavinsky is absolutely right that our society has a long way to go in respecting women. Any conversation about abortion absolutely needs to look at a woman as someone who could face discrimination, violence and mental illness as a result of a pregnancy. Being pro-life means respecting ALL lives—including that of the mother.

Our mission is not to absurdly label pro-choicers as baby-hating monsters or to shame women who have found themselves in heartbreaking situations of unwanted pregnancies—especially those who have chosen to have abortions. Our mission is to recognize and address the incredibly valid concerns of pro-choice people while also making our case for the rights of unborn humans. I understand that abortion is a deeply personal issue, and I say that as someone who comes from a family impacted by abortion.

Our club might be wrong about abortion. If that’s the case, then we want to know. However, we can only know the truth by having these conversations and being proven wrong by logic and evidence. This is why we will continue to sit in Bear’s Den, eager to talk. We feel genuinely happy after productive conversations—not out of pride for our stance on the topic but because we built a genuine connection with someone we disagreed with. Although Kavinsky disagrees with our stance on abortion, we simply request that she give us benefit of the doubt and assume that we come from a place of love and good intentions, as we believe is the case with those who are pro-choice.