<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Abortion and liberalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/06/02/104/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/06/02/104/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:46:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Griffith</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/2009/06/02/104/comment-page-1/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Griffith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:31:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicphilosopher.com/?p=104#comment-35</guid>
		<description>The nature of the beginning and ending of life is one of the most vexing problems for our society. From the very simple view of &quot;Tiller is killing babies, I must stop him&quot; to the conversely simple view of not being alive until delivered. The problem is there is little ground for compromise with these folks. 

Thankfully, as you pointed out, the extremists on both sides are a minority. I think the country would be well served in its politics by leaving both extremes behind and working on compromise.

The problem with compromise, though, is that few people would be happy with whatever policy is developed. Furthermore, due to the just the simple nature of our policy making process, any compromise will inherently be inelegant, muddled, and inconsistent. 

For this reason, single-issue voters vex me to no end, losing any number of good policies in search of a perfect solution and limiting the scope of our politics to narrow policy corridors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The nature of the beginning and ending of life is one of the most vexing problems for our society. From the very simple view of &#8220;Tiller is killing babies, I must stop him&#8221; to the conversely simple view of not being alive until delivered. The problem is there is little ground for compromise with these folks. </p>
<p>Thankfully, as you pointed out, the extremists on both sides are a minority. I think the country would be well served in its politics by leaving both extremes behind and working on compromise.</p>
<p>The problem with compromise, though, is that few people would be happy with whatever policy is developed. Furthermore, due to the just the simple nature of our policy making process, any compromise will inherently be inelegant, muddled, and inconsistent. </p>
<p>For this reason, single-issue voters vex me to no end, losing any number of good policies in search of a perfect solution and limiting the scope of our politics to narrow policy corridors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

