[thathndude]

As a person who fits within your example, this is what I always come back to. I can completely understand a person’s position in support of abortion, but no amount of talking through the issues will get us in alignment.

Many of these big issues (homelessness, immigration, universal income, abortion) come down to one’s particular viewpoint on humanity and human rights, and if folks aren’t in alignment from that foundation, no amount of dialogue changes the disagreement that flows from the foundation.

[kubb]

In modern societies the solution here is simply voting - people with similar worldviews group, and advocate for their position. The fringe positions, like advocation of slavery will lose. In the US, the winner takes all makes it more difficult, because you only get two options, and they have to represent views of a broad spectrum of voters.

[thathndude]

Also, folks need to appreciate the role that govt has in our lives (or that we want it to).

I don’t want the gov’t to implement my personal moral worldview. I want the gov’t to assure a basic level of law abiding and morality (I.e don’t kill or steal), and stay out of the rest.

[sgu999]

Yes but there are rational arguments in favour or against each of these issues, using values that (almost) everyone can agree on... Minimising suffering of sentient beings, or the continuation of our species for instance.

The hard bottom I hit with religious people is more often a disguised form of "because that's God's will" than a diverging core value.