Krista Jacob is the editor of "Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice."

Advocates of a woman's right to choose are losing the battle – in part because those working to protect that right are ignoring a complicated truth: Many people who support legalized abortion do so with differing personal philosophies and varying levels of conviction. Today, young people are better able to grapple with the nuances of emotion and experience about this difficult issue because they've grown up in a post-Roe America.

In her new book "Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice," Krista Jacob has compiled an impressive collection of essays by pro-choice advocates that addresses the spectrum of personal and social influences, ranging from dealing with remorse to the impact that economics, race, and culture have on a woman's right to choose.

She answers questions from Rewire after the jump.

Society has been inundated with the abortion debate for the last few decades – hasn't everything already been said? Don't people already identify with one of the two camps, "pro-life" or "pro-choice"?

It's true that a lot has been said (and said again) about abortion over the past few decades. Unfortunately the debate has become so vitriolic in both public and private spheres that many reasonable people shy away from this issue, that is until if affects them personally.

That said, regardless of a person's personal experiences, there are millions of people who have feelings and opinions about abortion that fall under the rubric of "pro-choice," yet shy away from identifying as such because they perceive the pro-choice position as dangerously simplistic and monolithic. Many have expressed to me that they have felt alienated in some pro-choice circles because they may have ambivalence or moral conflict with abortion itself, or they may even feel remorse or regret about their own abortion.

There are so many books that address the topic of abortion – how is this one different? Why did you put this book together?

My vision for Abortion Under Attack was informed primarily by my work counseling women and couples coping with unplanned pregnancies. In this work, I found a significant disconnect between the realities of these people's experience and the public discourse surrounding abortion. Abortion Under Attack is somewhat of a heretical pro-choice book. It tackles some of what have been treated as taboo subjects within the pro-choice movement, such as the question of fetal pain, grief or remorse after an abortion, late term abortion, and the problematic aspects of "choice" rhetoric when placed within the context of race and poverty. I hope this wonderful collection will open minds and build bridges where they can be built.

What were you surprised to learn in researching for your book?

Mainly, I was surprised by the overwhelming and positive response to this project. Because I was taking a new approach to this issue, an approach that recognized the diverse and at times controversial thinking among pro-choice advocates, I expected to get more resistance from my pro-choice peers and colleagues. It's easy to get caught up in "either/or" thinking which oversimplifies complex issues and equates everyone's experience as the same, and I don't think our movement has always been an exception to this rule. When I first started to say some of these things about 10 years I ago, I was accused of being apolitical and of giving ammunition to the anti-choice movement, so I had some concerns about that happening again But, during the process of compiling this book, the resistance was minimal, and the support was very strong. I realized that I had tapped into something within our movement (and on the outskirts of it as well) that has grown and needed to be brought to light.

What is the "new dialogue" that contributors address in this book? What new ideas are brought to light?

What I refer to as the "new dialogue" in Abortion Under Attack includes the vast array of views and experiences surrounding abortion that I would still term "pro-choice," yet haven't always been welcome in traditional pro-choice circles. There are people who believe that abortion kills a life but still work actively to protect a woman's right to choose what is right for her and her family. There are deeply religious and conservative women who have abortions. And there are women who grieve deeply for the pregnancy they aborted, and who desperately need supportive, non-politicized resources. This is the new dialogue I'm talking about, and I wanted to present it in a unified way in order to help change how abortion is talked about in the mainstream. Essentially this new dialogue is a movement within a movement, one that started at the grassroots level, in women's health clinics, among women sharing stories about their abortions, and is slowly changing and broadening the vision and strategy of the larger pro-choice movement.

Many pro-lifers argue there are numerous choices that people can make, which don't involve taking a life – what are some of these options? Why don't women pursue these alternatives to abortion?

The options are not numerous: abortion, adoption, parenthood. Period. That's it. No time machine to change the past. No crystal ball to see into the future. And there are many, many instances where none of those "options" feel right. So, women and couples are left making the best decision they can with the resources and information they've been given.

Also, because there is still such cultural stigma against women and their sexuality, women are judged harshly regardless of the decision they make. Abortion has a terrible stigma associated with it, but so do adoption and single parenthood. For millions of women, it's a no-win situation in our society and considering that half of all pregnancies are unplanned in this country, these negative attitudes affect a lot of women's lives and choices. I believe if we as a society committed to ending poverty and to de-stigmatizing adoption and single parenthood, more women would choose these options.

Do men have a voice in the abortion debate? Why or why not? Is this the best course of action for everyone?

Yes, men should have a voice in the abortion debate and many do…and not just on the anti-choice side either. I've had the pleasure of working with some very dedicated men, many of whom are abortion providers, in my reproductive health work. I have learned from them and developed a more holistic understanding of this issue through our work together. And, of course, there is the significant role pro-choice male politicians, judges, lawyers, etc. have played in making and shaping family planning and abortion policy for the better. I think this is an aspect of our movement where we've had some degree of success. There are many more men involved in our movement now than there were 15-20 years ago, which I believe is the collective result of women being more inclusive and men taking greater responsibility for reproductive health issues.

Another critical role for men is in the abortion experience itself. In my work, I frequently saw male partners remain silent or simply say it's "her choice." I always challenged them to play a more active role in this experience. Of course the final decision is hers, because it's her body and her life is most affected, but it's still healthy for supportive male partners to ask themselves all the difficult questions and to do as much self-reflection as she is. This allows the couple to be more mutually supportive, and to own their decision together.

Women of various ages, economic backgrounds, and ethnicities were included in this book – what kind of experiences did the women share? Differences?

One of the most compelling aspects of Abortion Under Attack is its diversity. Our movement has historically been criticized for having a white middle-class bias, and having failed to include the experiences of women who live on the margins of our society. I'm proud to have compiled a collection that reflects diversity of both experience and opinion, and I'm honored that women were willing to share their thoughts and experiences in my book.

In general, the writers share a commitment to exploring the meaning of abortion in both the political and personal sphere. The legalization of abortion has allowed us to more fully explore what abortion is, how it impacts people and society, how it is talked about publicly and how it is experienced personally. I was also impressed by the writers' insistence on examining the abortion issue within a larger cultural context. There is a wonderful essay from the Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice in which they connect reproductive justice to broader social issues such as: ending the sexual trafficking of women and girls, environmental justice and personal care products, worker's rights and undocumented women laborers, and so on. The writers cast a wide net, and I believe this is one of the most effective strategies for raising awareness about, and gaining support for, legal abortion.

If you could only elucidate three kernels of information that you hope people will take away with them from your book, what would they be?

The personal is still political and the political must embrace the plurality of personal experience. I understand that political messages must be concise but they needn't be overly simplistic and they mustn't be developed at the cost of excluding marginalized people.

People are extremely ready for and open to a new dialogue about abortion, and now is the right time to cultivate this dialogue. Abortion is under serious attack and unless we can change the tone of our dialogue, on a large scale, we risk losing legal abortion completely.

Our movement must be responsive to a changing and evolving society. As I say in my Introduction, it is as much our right to have varying opinions about abortion as it is our right to have access to safe, legal, and dignified abortion.