The story of abortion in America struck a familiar note last week as the nation marked the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. We’ve heard this sound track before: impassioned protests, hysterical fund-raising, stern warnings, and the stampede of politicians to the spotlight. Those on the front lines were propelled by extreme righteousness; those on the sidelines watched with apathy or disgust.

It made me, once again, yearn for another way, a Third Path, an alternative to the yelling and demonizing that characterizes most public speech on this vexing issue. Something that takes advantage of what we’ve learned in the last three decades and maps out where we need to go.

Seeking some kind of common ground on abortion, unfortunately, is even less popular than it was a few years ago. In fact, the Washington-based Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, which in the 1990s supported dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice individuals, disbanded for lack of funding. The Philadelphia-area dialogue, which I had the privilege of twice attending, has gone on an indefinite hiatus.

Yet the impasse in American public opinion and policy is likely to last, especially when abortion is framed as a stark win-lose situation. My gain is your loss. Back to the barricades.

I’d like to change the story line. I propose a different kind of abortion conversation, recognizing the dignity of both sides and asking for major compromises from each. The locked-in-battle extremists won’t like this, of course, but I’m willing to bet that there are enough Americans in the mushy middle, eager to carve out a third way.

I ask pro-lifers to begin by acknowledging that even devout men and women can believe that life begins at birth, not conception. In the making of public policy, it is men and women, not God, who take sides. No one faith, no one reading of any one sacred text, can be allowed to commandeer the process. Every biblical quote opposing abortion is open to an alternative interpretation. Besides, even many abortion opponents will make exceptions in cases of rape or the mother’s health — a tacit recognition that pregnancy is a balancing act of competing rights and interests, not simply a way station between conception and death.

I ask pro-choicers to begin by acknowledging that abortion is about more than protecting a woman’s total right to determine her reproductive destiny. There is a developing human being involved — and whether you call it a fetus or an unborn child, it has a role in this drama. It’s not a bit player or an inconvenience. The absolutist language of unfettered rights has left no room for talk of responsibilities. That has to change.

I ask both camps to accept that there is a life developing in the womb during pregnancy — but it is not analogous to anything else in human experience. To treat a fetus as a disposable product defiles the sacredness of the life it is becoming. But to consider it a fully formed human being defies what we know about gestation: that the life in the womb is highly dependent on the mother, especially in the early months of pregnancy, and that not even modern technology can push back the immutable point of viability. Our very notion of being “alive,” moreover, is based on the moment we are born.

I wish that pro-lifers would realize that their stealth attempts to limit access to abortion — the waiting periods and judicial decrees, the mandatory counseling sessions and parental notifications — are demeaning and manipulative. These efforts infantilize women at the very moment when those women are being asked to do the most grown-up thing in their lives — take perpetual responsibility for another human being. Can’t they be free to make a decision on their own?

At the same time, I wish that pro-choicers would understand that three decades of legalized abortion has contributed to a culture that has decoupled child-rearing from marriage and allowed too many fathers to absent themselves from their children’s lives. Abortion may have liberated women from forced reproduction, but it also liberated men from accepting responsibility for their sexual actions. As a result, too many children are growing up without benefit of both parents — and with several strikes against them before they enter the rugged arena of adulthood.

Instead, I wish that both groups would work together to persuade teenagers to postpone sexual activity, to safeguard themselves if they are sexually active, and to teach them that marriage is the very best institution for raising children. Not only would that reduce the need for abortion; it also would improve the lives of children already with us.

Another point of compromise: Acknowledge that abortion has left lasting scars on some women — but not all. For all the anecdotes we hear of regret and remorse from women who once aborted, we’ll never know what life would have been like for them had they been forced to bear that child.

Common ground is built on mutual respect. After three decades of polarization, aren’t you ready for a different conversation?