Listening often poses challenges when we're speaking to those with whom we disagree, who have opposing views and different experiences. But the more different we are or the more we disagree, the more important our listening becomes.

Since 2022, one such issue has become particularly salient for women in the U.S.: a woman’s right to an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, and that development is not without personal consequences for some and strong opinions for many.

The issue of abortion has a special meaning for me because of my own behind-the-scenes involvement in a harrowing 1978 trial. A young woman (Marla Pitchford) who had almost died after self-inducing an abortion with a knitting needle was indicted for manslaughter and performing an illegal abortion. The trial took place in Bowling Green, Kentucky. My sister, her primary defense attorney and confidante, won her acquittal after months of meticulous research and preparation. Recently, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my interest in the case and in abortion was revived.

My aim in this article is to show how listening skills, as adapted from the theoretical teachings of 20th-century psychologist Carl Rogers, can be applied to help defuse an emotionally charged situation involving a disagreement over abortion. In their famous paper “Active Listening,” Rogers and Farson (1957) described active listening as the process of trying to grasp the facts and feelings behind what the listener hears and, in this way, to help the speakers become less defensive and less argumentative. When people are listened to sensitively, according to these therapists, they tend to listen to themselves with more care and are able to examine their points of view more objectively.

Abortion as a Volatile Issue

“Unlike other points of public contention,” says Psychology Today contributor and criminal attorney Wendy Patrick, “the legality of abortion raises sensitive and emotional personal issues involving beliefs, attitudes, morality, and faith.” The issue of abortion was already contentious, but when the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, the issue came closer to home for many people.

First, there was widespread media coverage—along with national protests on one side of the issue and celebrations on the other—and, secondly, new laws passed by many state legislatures. The divisiveness was huge and largely along partisan lines.

And although, according to a national survey from the Pew Research Center (2022), most Americans are moderates on the subject and take individual circumstances into account, the survey also showed that over one-third of adults say they have given a lot of thought to the issue of abortion. Overall, one-third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24 percent) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. Once people get into debates over moral issues, tempers can flare.

Lessons Applied to the U.S. Abortion Conflict

Now we can take the emotionally fraught and divisive issue of abortion as a case in point to see the extent to which active listening skills might apply to help defuse the tension. The strategies that are described here are relevant to any number of similar situations involving political differences.

Emotions are our worst enemy; this is what Carl Rogers said. He was referring to the listener’s own emotions, but emotions in the other person too can be damaging.

Out-of-control emotions are contagious and tend to escalate in bouts of disagreement. Self-awareness, as Roger suggested, is key to understanding one’s emotional responses and gaining control over them. He viewed listening to oneself as a prerequisite to listening to others.

Empathy provides the ability to understand another person’s experience in the world, as if you were that person. Empathic listening is often evident in body language, voice tones, and the words that are used.

Applied to the cultural wars over abortion (or immigration, police violence, or any other contentious topics), most people would want to avoid a heated argument and just enjoy an amiable conversation. It can be interesting to know where a friend or family member stands. In a trusted relationship, there should be disagreement without animosity.

Should the discussion start to get out of hand, it takes only one person to defuse the situation. Humor and empathy go a long way to relieve the tension. Just as violence breeds violence, so empathy begets empathy. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King (who encountered a great deal of personal hostility) were inspired by an ancient theme—that a single light can dispel darkness.

As a case example, we can consider the perspective of an individual who strongly believes it is a woman’s right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. This person, let’s say, is speaking to a friend who is passionately pro-life, and seemingly gearing up for an argument.

The active listener in this situation might respond by acknowledging the friend’s concern for infants and children and expressing understanding that some aspects of abortion can be disturbing for some. Appreciation of the person’s strong religious faith, if a factor, might be expressed. Both might even agree, for example, that society should provide greater care and support for mothers and children after birth.

In an ideal situation, then, the pro-life person will respond in kind and both individuals will agree that the situation is difficult. In any case, the focus would be on finding common ground. The discussion could end, for example, with both agreeing that if greater financial support was given to a family after the birth of a child, it's possible that there would be fewer women having abortions.

The pro-life individual, however, might instead enter into a tirade against women who have had an abortion or their supporters. In dealing with such emotionalism, the listener would do well to consider such hostility could be stemming from another source, and with that understanding in mind, choose not to pursue the issue any further.

If the conversation continues, the listener can rely on the three main components of Rogers’s active listening: empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard. This involves, as Rogers advises, accepting the speaker regardless of the content of his or her words.

In the same way that the pro-choice person can seek reconciliation through active listening, so the staunchly pro-life person can recognize the other's concern for the health and welfare of women and turn the focus to their mutual concern for children after they are brought into the world. Through momentarily putting oneself in the place of the advocate for women’s rights, the active listener of a pro-life persuasion can show respect for the other’s point of view. Phrases such as “I see where you are coming from” or “I know you always care a lot for women’s rights,” if said in a calm tone of voice, can be helpful.

If this approach of empathic listening can work for differences in attitudes about abortion, it could also work in other areas of highly charged discourse as well, many that arise unexpectedly in conversation. Polarized topics such as immigration, political ties, and gender identity have a way of cropping up when the sentiments concerning them are strong or following a report on the news.

The three basic tenets of Rogers’ theory—genuineness, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding—can go a long way toward preventing conflict and enriching a relationship.