Mary said:
So, basically I'm wondering how much people's minds can be changed on the subject of abortion. This statement I read in an article caused me to think more deeply about this subject: "The debate over abortion rights is ugly, the gap between pro-choice and pro-life too vast for meaningful dialogue, the differences too fundamental for compromise."

You're probably the best pro-life debater I've known. It has to be the case you've won debates with pro-choicers. So let me ask if this is true. When it becomes apparent you've won the debate with your opponent, something like this probably happens:
1) Your opponent starts to get very frustrated and possibly angry
2) Your opponent makes an ad hominem against the pro-life movement and possibly at you
3) Your opponent restates one of his arguments even though you've already addressed it
4) You start getting a lot of "Yes But" arguments. That is, the person acknowledges what you say but then comes up with something else.

Basically, it's like even though you have them backed into a corner, they're still going to be pro-choice. So I'm wondering if pro-choices and pro-lifers have 2 completely irreconcilable world-views.

My response:
Hey Mary! I might expand some when we talk about this quote one day on the podcast, but here’s a few quick thoughts off the top of my head, in response to: "The debate over abortion rights is ugly, the gap between pro-choice and pro-life too vast for meaningful dialogue, the differences too fundamental for compromise."

For the most part, I disagree with this quote. You’ve heard us talk about common ground on the show. It’s not just a pipe dream. It really happens, in conversations every day. It takes work and it means talking about the subject in a very purposeful way to help make that happen. In some ways it’s probably more of an art than a formula, but it can be done.

Even when NO common ground can be found, I think “meaningful dialogue” can happen anytime two people can share their views about a subject, in an effort to communicate honestly without resorting to personal attacks.

However, I would agree that the core world-view of the pro-life side is starkly different from the core world-view of the pro-abortion-choice side. Either human beings are all equally and inherently valuable, OR some human beings are more valuable than other human beings, and equality is not an absolute when it comes to human value.

I think the majority of pro-abortion-choice people believe that one’s value is connected to brain development, location, size or some other function, and in that view, there will be some kind of value-changing throughout life.

The exception would be the pro-abortion-choice person who, (and I believe you fall within this category,) agrees with the idea of human equality, but has concerns over bodily autonomy as it relates to women while they’re pregnant. At that point the debate shifts to subjects like what responsibility if any that parents have to their offspring, whether one or two bodies is involved in the equation at hand and whether that matters, whether Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “violinist” analogy works, etc.

I do think many people can change their minds on abortion, because I think when properly articulated, the morality of abortion is an easier debate than more complex issues like same-sex marriage. You can see this already in the last few decades of opinion polls. But the reasons some people are moving from the pro-abortion-choice side towards the pro-life side are for many different reasons. (Learning about fetal development or abortion procedures, hearing the philosophic arguments properly articulated, seeing graphic pictures or a 3D ultrasound, debating incremental laws like informed consent and banning D&X abortions, just to name a few.)

I’ve definitely experienced all of the possible scenarios you listed after winning a debate with someone who is pro-choice. (Although I think of them as dialogues, where no one really wins, but ideally one or both of us changes our opinion at least slightly.) But I get your meaning in that, a “win” would be if I presented clear arguments that were never refuted, but one of the other four scenarios happened.

Sometimes that happens because changing one’s world view, which is often what we’re talking about here, is a very difficult task and not one to be done lightly or quickly in front of someone else. At best, perhaps the person considers it for a few weeks and slowly changes their opinion, but it might take years!

Sometimes people don’t change their opinion on abortion, and it has less to do with logical arguments, and more to do with having an emotional connection with the issue. (Not always a personal abortion, but perhaps knowing someone who did, or someone who was raped that might have considered an abortion, etc.)

I think it would be easier to debate a subject like global warming, where either the scientific data and reasoning Al Gore presents is factual, or it’s not. (For the record, I haven’t looked hard enough at Gore’s data to form an opinion one way or the other, but I think either way we ought to care for our planet.) On the other hand, things like abortion, doctor assisted suicide and same-sex marriage are much more personal issues. It’s not just about scientific facts and logical arguments, although many pro-lifers make the mistake of limiting it to that, or at least acting like it when they discuss the issue. Mary, you are a real person, with decades of experiences and relationships that helped form your views on everything. It would be simplistic and dehumanizing of me to just put you in this little check-box called “pro-choicer.” There’s so much more depth to you, and every pro-abortion-choice person I’ve ever been privileged to speak with than that.