I literally made that case in my post. I was asking them to consider the argument being made rather than supplant it with one of their own.

Because it’s less direct, I’d imagine. I take you’re point, but I think you’re assuming something that’s functionally ignored in that argument - that it involves a woman’s body at all. I’d entirely agree that for many people making it, it’s not truly the position they hold and is more a convenient social cover for a…

That’s a really interesting point. It sidesteps the typical problem with the debate: the reductive description of a fetus. It’s not “a life” and it’s not “just tissue”. It’s its own unique and complicated thing and neither conclusions addresses it’s unique concerns. In your argument, none of that is relevant. 

I don’t think you can hold the belief that it’s a human life and also accept that it’s an entirely personal decision. To do that you’d have to accept that the belief wasn’t real, which doesn’t work by definition. (Not that I’m arguing that it is a life, just that it’s a consistent position).

I don’t agree with the opinion that it is a life (I don’t agree that it’s not one either - I think it’s a unique thing and should be treated as such, but that’s another question), but I don’t think your argument really works as a rebuttal to hers.

What I find baffling about this is that it’s basically being prevented by people angry that the bill doesn’t do enough to punish the american people for not being rich.

Which was the style at the time.

“Well maybe, Johnny, just a bit.”

And not, say, ticket sales?

That’s the standard of evidence I look for in someone in charge of nuclear weapons: Assume it now, search desperately for evidence afterwards.

“Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things.”

If only there had been some indication before the election! I mean, aside from literally everything they said and did.

I for one am glad that the administration is acting first and checking if the thing they said was true after. It makes me feel all sorts of comfortable that these people are in charge of the greatest armed force the world has ever known.

“consider the repercussions of the sexual relationship that they’re gonna have”

Should we be concerned that the people making decisions about when and where the United States goes to war apply a standard of evidence that sees “I read it on some conspiracy site” and gives it a pass?

I entirely agree, and indeed applaud the measured tone of your post when mostly I feel like screaming at people who (often willfully) misunderstand this topic.

He doesn’t believe he’s responsible. What he signed off on was a success. Failures belong to other people.

I figured it was more a “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” sort of thing.

“acted inadvertently”

It’s like they’re asking border guards to perform psychoanalysis, to establish and diagnose “terrorist” as a personality type, like they’ve not been involved in any kind of law enforcement, but have watched every episode of Criminal Minds so consider themselves qualified. It’s a a policy based in fantasy, like it was…