In her guest article for Self Magazine, Meryl Angelicola criticizes the “pro-life party” for its lack of focus on women’s rights. She questions its refusal to fund basic health care, especially birth control. She declares that the government’s “lobbying to cut the programs that do [help them]” are what leave many helpless women ending up in abortion clinics. She protested at the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. because immigrants, women of color, and women in poverty need, now more than ever, to be heard.

Further, she describes herself in the article first and foremost as a proud “pro-life Christian feminist.”

Along with Angelicola’s article, many supportive responses to the Women’s March from self-proclaimed “pro-life feminists” reveal that pro-life and pro-choice women— who seem to stand on polarized sides of an irreparably chasmic issue —agree on much more than we often see or even realize.

Even so, many pro-life women who wished to protest felt excluded from the Women’s Marches. The leader of the pro-life group Students for Life of America, Kristina Hernandez, reported in a Vox article that other Washington marchers were “screaming at [them], ripping at [their] signs…one spit on [them],” recounting some particularly “brutal” treatment. This behavior was not unique to Washington, and it tarnished the otherwise peaceful protests with violent and divisive undertones.

Regardless of one’s position on the issue, the hostility between pro-choice and anti-abortion groups drives the discussion away from the true nature of the pro-choice movement: a woman’s ability to choose. The movement focuses on a woman’s right to assess her own situation and make her own decisions for her body. Pro-choice activists should include both women who personally support having an abortion and those who would choose not to— all united under the belief in a woman’s right to choose. In their fervor, pro-choice feminists sometimes generalize pro-life supporters as “abortion is a sin” evangelicals who believe birth control is evil.

In order to reach common ground on this issue, the first step for both sides should be viewing abortion, and the decision to have one, in a broader picture. The socioeconomic and psychological factors driving someone to have an abortion, such as lack of access to birth control and sex education, or lingering prejudice against unmarried mothers, are relics of subtle misogyny with which any self-professed feminist, whether pro-life or not, should take issue.

If all activists focus on understanding the societal aspects of abortion that don’t necessarily pertain to the fetus itself, we can foster a respectful relationship in which we actually listen to each other. And with that newfound rapport, we can work to pass legislation combating the sexist prejudices surrounding abortion by, for example, making birth control accessible or creating paid maternity leave. Finding this common ground and acting on it would help prevent abortions, satisfying the pro-life movement, and allow women more choice in their reproductive health, appealing to those pro-choice. But most importantly, it would heal the rifts the abortion divide creates in the feminist movement, especially in the midst of today’s discord.

As Gloria Steinem cried enthusiastically at the Women’s March, “We’re staying together, and we’re taking over.” It’s time, regardless of whether we are pro-choice, pro-life, or somewhere in the middle ground, for us to stop, think, listen, and—together—understand.