Safe Haven

 If I reject the premise that I must vote for whomever opposes abortion with the most ferocity--at least rhetorically--to the exclusion of all other issues, it does not entail accepting another premise that abortion is acceptable. If I accept the premise that there are economic components to decision-making regarding abortion, it does not entail my acceptance of a premise that abortion is entirely driven by economics. I am still free to accept the premise that abortion is never acceptable, even if individual situations where it is chosen are less morally culpable than others. I don't want to believe that this is entirely too much nuance in today's environment. I'm hoping for the best; don't let me down.

 There are some people who seem to think that I am now obligated to criticize Democratic political leaders with the same ferocity. Where is that written in my contract? I don't have any idea what someone's personal calculation of "fair" in politics is. All I can promise you is, I'll continue to talk about the things that matter to me, and if I change my mind, I'll try to explain why. It must be a special feature of our polarized times, to pretend that both sides are equally bad. It depends on what we are talking about. And to be seen as good, one need only publicly demonstrate their hostility to the opposing side. It's seemingly irrelevant, whether some articulation of public policy makes sense, or addresses an issue of real concern. It might be profitable to try to find the furtive attempts at real discussions in the various statements of our political leaders, rather than attack or ignore them in bad faith. But this is really hard, especially when partic

 Dr. Cross may want in on this.