While I agree with the overall sentiment, people ought to have to earn the privilege of being listened to by meeting a higher standard of reasonableness, self-awareness, and intellectual responsibility than that.

The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just wrong!" like that's somehow sufficient. Her view is driven by a preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for self-correction.

I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others. Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already given.

If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a view. It's not a window into any meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it sympathy.