How is it that people can't tolerate alternative viewpoints?

The link is to:

Barack Obama - Gianna Jessen Born Alive Abortion

((If you're a woman who's had an abortion, this is not condemnation toward you.))

A segment on Hannity & Colmes regarding Gianna, who survived being aborted and would have been snuffed out if the abortionist had been on the scene; alternately, she was sent to an emergency room by the nurse.

Her life is living testimony that abortion is not solely about women's rights.

Hannity interviews first and then Colmes; so there are alternate views represented.

Neither Hannity nor Colmes budge from their ground. I find it interesting, however, that Colmes' viewpoint still leaves no room to disagree...he budge even when there is living proof in front of him that there's more to life and more to consider with abortion than the mom's rights.

Here's her story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ&feature...

No time to listen to an alternate viewpoint? No time to answer?

That's precisely why I'm asking this question.

Not that this is necessarily the case here, but I try to keep in mind that some get paid for blogging...regardless of the subject.

It doesn't move me that someone doesn't have time to engage here...nor does it mean that someone with high points is an expert. As such, what may turn out as the "best answer" may not actually be THE answer.

Not that this is necessarily the case here, but I try to keep in mind that some get paid for blogging...regardless of the subject.

It doesn't move me that someone doesn't have time to engage here...nor does it mean that someone with high points is an expert. As such, what may turn out as the "best answer" may not actually be THE answer.