I walked into a town hall hosted by CNN and Jubilee Media featuring James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Texas, prepared to talk about abortion from the perspective of a Catholic voter. I walked away newly convinced that if Catholics hope to persuade others to join us in protecting human life, from conception to natural death, we must find new ways to engage those who disagree with us. We must engage in the kind of civil discourse that does not demand that we pro-life voters abandon our convictions but invites us to work together, where possible, to discover how best to protect human life and dignity.

I am a professor at the University of Dallas, and about two weeks before the town hall, I received an email inviting my students and me to apply to be part of the audience. People of all political backgrounds were encouraged to fill out an application about what was important to us as voters and what policies or beliefs we disagree with Mr. Talarico on. I quickly completed the form and then just as quickly forgot all about it until a CNN producer contacted me to see if I would be interested in holding a four-minute conversation on the topic of abortion—the topic that, in her words, “you have very strong opinions about.” 

It never occurred to me how big of an impact that my time with Mr. Talarico would have. I saw this as a great opportunity to share a view from a Catholic voter, one that I know many Catholics like me hold. When I left the studio after the event, I turned on my phone to tell my husband that I thought it went well and that I would be home soon. I was certainly surprised to learn my quick exchange had gone viral. People across the country, Christian or not, who agreed with me and who didn’t were excited: Someone had finally shown the debate on abortion could be civil.

Abortion touches the heart of my Catholic faith and my understanding of the human person. I believe human life begins at conception and that every human being, born and unborn, possesses inherent dignity. These convictions are rooted in the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition, which calls us to recognize the sacredness of human life and our responsibility toward the most vulnerable.

When I sat across from Mr. Talarico, I wanted to ask the questions I have often used to discern whether a political candidate is someone I can trust to do what is right: “Why should I vote for someone who supports abortion rights? How can I trust a candidate to protect all Texans when we disagree about protecting the most vulnerable among us?” I did not expect a few minutes of conversation to resolve our differences. Mr. Talarico, a former Presbyterian seminarian, and I approach abortion from different moral and theological perspectives. Even so, our exchange served as a good reminder that all Christians need more opportunities for conversations like this one, especially between people who disagree. It is often in these encounters that we confront our assumptions and begin to see possibilities for moving toward a shared goal.

I appreciated that Mr. Talarico, who described Pope Leo XIV as one of his “spiritual heroes,” engaged my questions and explained his beliefs, even when I felt he sometimes moved away from the heart of what I was asking. And he graciously offered me the opportunity to explain my beliefs as well. Although we did not reach agreement—I do not accept his claim that the Bible is “silent” on the issue of abortion—I left with a clearer sense of his perspective and a renewed appreciation for what becomes possible when we allow one another to speak.

How often do we deny ourselves that opportunity? We hear a political label, assume we understand everything about the person behind it and stop listening. We allow disagreement to replace encounter. Our public conversations become contests in which the objective is to win rather than to understand, persuade or seek the common good.

Listening does not mean agreeing. Respecting another person does not mean compromising the truth. And seeking to understand someone’s reasoning does not require us to endorse that person’s conclusions. These distinctions matter, particularly when the subject is abortion.

Abortion is not an abstract political question. It involves human lives, difficult circumstances, moral responsibilities and deeply personal experiences. Behind political positions are people whose beliefs have been shaped by family histories, suffering, fear, faith and hope. While the church teaches that direct abortion is gravely wrong, that teaching does not relieve us of the responsibility to understand the circumstances that lead women to consider abortion. Indeed, understanding those circumstances is essential if we hope to prevent abortion and build a culture that welcomes life.

My conversation with Mr. Talarico reminded me of the importance of identifying practical concerns we share, even when we disagree about fundamental moral questions. We may not agree on abortion, but we can still ask how to reduce the circumstances that lead women to feel they have no other option. We can strengthen families, improve access to material assistance and ensure that women are not abandoned when they choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Common ground does not mean pretending our differences are insignificant or treating every position as equally true. It means identifying opportunities for cooperation without obscuring the moral convictions that guide us.

My conversation with Mr. Talarico did not resolve our disagreement on abortion. I remain convinced that protecting unborn life is a fundamental moral responsibility. But the experience reminded me that conviction and dialogue are not enemies. Meaningful dialogue can deepen our understanding of what our convictions demand of us and challenge us to live them more faithfully. The conversations we need about abortion must be honest enough to name our disagreements, compassionate enough to acknowledge human suffering and courageous enough to ask what a consistent commitment to human dignity requires.

We may not arrive at the same answers. But if we remain at the table, listen carefully and pursue truth together, we may discover opportunities to protect life, support families and serve the common good that we would otherwise miss. That is not a substitute for conviction. It is what conviction, lived with humility and love, makes possible.

Dr. Jodi Hunt is the executive director of the Neuhoff Institute for Ministry and Evangelization at the University of Dallas. For more than fifteen years, she has been engaged in teaching at the secondary and higher education levels, alongside active service in parish ministry, particularly in youth ministry and catechesis.