Does anyone else get what I am saying here?
Or is it just me?
It seems activists from both the left and right are conditioned to use Constitutional defenses to justify their own platforms or bias, but can't seem to relate to or apply it equally when the shoe is on the other foot.
Please see comment below I posted in response to another blog article (which criticized
Obama's executive order as falsely promising no federal funds would support abortion):
==============================================
Actually, the whole health bill is "anti-choice." The Constitutional defense of pro-choice opposition to pro-life legislation was to avoid imposing on the will or consent of citizens, even if it meant sacrificing "protections" of life and health. But now, when the political motive is to "protect" the life and health of uninsured citizens, it is deemed a permissible use of majority-rule to impose legislation against the will or "free choice" of dissenting opponents. I have not found either fellow "liberal pro-choice Democrats" or conservative pro-life Republicans willing to acknowledge this contradiction! Why? Because it exposes either the hypocrisy on the left in only defending "free choice" for one political issue but not for others; or the hypocrisy on the right for those who can't grasp that imposing on religious freedom of "choice" is unconstitutional. Hopefully the conflicts with the health bill, which does not reflect or represent the consent of the public affected, will illustrate that point and drive it home.
http://www.ethics-commission.net
Or is it just me?
It seems activists from both the left and right are conditioned to use Constitutional defenses to justify their own platforms or bias, but can't seem to relate to or apply it equally when the shoe is on the other foot.
Please see comment below I posted in response to another blog article (which criticized
Obama's executive order as falsely promising no federal funds would support abortion):
==============================================
Actually, the whole health bill is "anti-choice." The Constitutional defense of pro-choice opposition to pro-life legislation was to avoid imposing on the will or consent of citizens, even if it meant sacrificing "protections" of life and health. But now, when the political motive is to "protect" the life and health of uninsured citizens, it is deemed a permissible use of majority-rule to impose legislation against the will or "free choice" of dissenting opponents. I have not found either fellow "liberal pro-choice Democrats" or conservative pro-life Republicans willing to acknowledge this contradiction! Why? Because it exposes either the hypocrisy on the left in only defending "free choice" for one political issue but not for others; or the hypocrisy on the right for those who can't grasp that imposing on religious freedom of "choice" is unconstitutional. Hopefully the conflicts with the health bill, which does not reflect or represent the consent of the public affected, will illustrate that point and drive it home.
http://www.ethics-commission.net
