> if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention to facts instead

> if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention to facts instead of positions or opinions. It's not important that your conversation partner believes X or claims that "Y is obvious". Instead you should pay attention when your conversation partner points on "people measured X in in such and such a way and found Y". Collect evidence in your head, not opinions or other people's' summaries of the evidence. I agree that in many cases there is no obvious correct answer. In those cases I think it is reasonable not to take a strong position. We should make decisions and compromise by examining objective facts in tandem with our own ethics and values, not by examining others' ethics and values. To be specific, I should evaluate facts about abortion rates, fetal development, and family planning outcomes in the context of my own ethical worldview. If I want to change my ethics, then the conversation should be about ethics instead of abortion. > how will we ever get in agreement I believe in many cases, we will not come to agreement. Many people will never change their mind on abortion (in either direction). The goal is to be happy and improve ones own worldview without it being necessary to agree or to figure out why the other person is biased.