Agree to disagree. It's pretty hard, and often unrewarding, to bridge such fundamental divides in values.
And if you tune out the media and talk to ordinary Republicans and Democrats you'll usually find that there are few fundamental divides and that they mostly agree on the main points of political and economic philosophy. It's like Catholics and Protestants arguing over the fine points of Christian theology; those might seem important to fanatics but if you take a step back and look at the disputes from the perspective of, let's say, a Buddhist the differences seem trivial.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...
> What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"?
When that human is outside of another human. Until then, women and doctors should have ZERO risk of being held liable for decisions about saving the pregnant woman’s life that may have to be made in seconds in a rapidly changing medical situation.
It is a complete non issue (that is until the Repubs started banning women’s healthcare) burning untold resources of our nation’s political time and money.
In what world is this a coherent argument that people should look past these ideological divides in their relationships? You know, the actual disagreement at hand?
Politics isn't a sport or hobby, it is actually life or death for some people. The risk is not distributed equally, and those most in danger are not obligated to pretend the stakes are equally low for them.