3 ms·
By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Actually, we don't know that either way. We
by zzalpha 10y ago
By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion.
Actually, we don't know that either way.
We understand where her philosophical position takes root. That's it.
On its own that's certainly interesting.
Whether or not there's flexibility in that position, though, is a question that remains unanswered.
Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her.
I'm curious, what, in the post, leads you to that conclusion?
- fatbird 10y agoWe do know that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition because she acknowledges that her opposition is based on her circumstances. That's neither philosophical nor intractable. "Intractable" would be something like "I just believe it's totally wrong and won't entertain discussion otherwise." Room for compromise comes from the fairly obvious approach of disassociating abortion from her personal circumstances... likely by sharing the author's stories about women he knows for whom abortion was a difficult but justified personal choice, not a spiteful act directed at the woman to shame her for being barren. With some empathetic discussion, this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. What more do you want, to believe that there is room for compromise?