I do think we agree on more than you're giving us credit for.

On your first point, I agree that society can't just completely regulate sex. They can regulate rape and pedophilia (both of which you acknowledged), but in a society that is a mixture of religious and irreligious people, I'm not out here campaigning for the days when sodomy was illegal.

The issue is that when we talk about restricting abortion, we're not talking about determining what happens in their bedroom. They can still have sex if they want. We're talking about what should happen to the baby. Now, maybe I'm taking this wrong and your comment here was more aimed at my notion of being aware of the effects of our policies. Fair enough, but the point is that in either case, you're influencing how people behave sexually. If you enact abortion restrictions you promote good behavior and if you abolish abortion restrictions you promote bad behavior. It's obvious on moral grounds that abortion should be abolished, but the fact that it also promotes greater responsibility in society is like having your cake and eating it too.

The part that I do outright disagree with is the notion that other people's sex lives are none of our concern. Leaving aside the notion of pedophilia and rape (which, again, you did acknowledge is the statement before), is my wife's sex life none of my business?

Divorce law is a huge industry, and people's sex lives have lots of implications for how judges make real decisions that will meaningfully impact their lives.

On your second point about treasuring the life of our own vs the life of our enemy, I'm on board. Of course, there is one caveat: As long as your enemy isn't trying to kill you. Don't get me wrong, you should still value his life. It's just that certain rules go out the window in self defense situations.

So I would say I agree on the second point, and mostly agree on the first (although as I acknowledged, I might not agree on the implications or on the last statement)

I'm not sure about your third statement. Mostly I don't think I was able to follow the first part. What are you referring to when you talk about men imposing their will?

However, like the first point, I do disagree with your final statement. Every single aborted child in human history had a father. My wife is pregnant with our fourth child. Do I not have skin in the game? Should she be able to kill this baby that we made and named together without consulting me?

I don't think abortion should be legal, but if it is we need to be consistent. No man should be forced to pay any child support for a baby he didn't want. After all, if respecting peoples' rights is important and we want to say that the woman has a right to unburden herself from an unwanted pregnancy, so does a man.

Now, as it happens, my actual position is the opposite. If you knock some girl up you that you aren't married to, you owe her and her child half your income.

Pro child support, anti-abortion is a logically consistent position. Anti child support, pro-abortion is a logically consistent position. What isn't logical is pro abortion, pro-child support. Either a father is responsible for his children or he isn't.

And I think this is a good insight into the absurdity of modern sexual ethics where consent is the only thing that matters (I wholeheartedly believe consent is vital, it's just that I believe that it's not the only thing that is important). There's a bizarre notion that we all want to fool ourselves into that sex can be safely divorced from commitment, family, and children. It's can't be. And it's absurd to try.

And I do think many of your later points are valid. Wars are complicated and within war different people are motivated by different things and it's basically impossible to know what's in anyone's heart. One of the reasons why we need to be careful about war is not just because the casualties are so devastating, but because it opens up an opportunity to bring out the worst in people