That's the explanation I got when I asked
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion, and demand to keep government OUT of private health decisions,
but the same prochoice activists believe in Singlepayer health care through government,
and denounce when OPPONENTS to ACA want "freedom of choice" in health care without imposing government fines and regulations?
He said it's because liberal Democrats have "lost their ever loving minds."
"They demand that federal government stay out of women's wombs,
but want to hand over "every cell of their body" to government programs."
I asked some prochoice friends.
Some admit they oppose ACA, but of those people, nobody but me is willing to push for reforms, and some are afraid of aligning with conservative opponents on a common goal of restoring free choice; they seem to have a bias against working with conservatives, but are content to let "those people" fight against this issue for them, and aren't helping by going along instead of opposing it.
Most of my friends do not perceive any responsibility or connection between "using public funds or public authority" and answering to the beliefs of other people who are equally represented. Any other views are treated as invalid, so these don't count in public policy.
Only theirs counts as public policy and should govern all the regulations and decisions?
There seems to be an assumption that whatever policies or plans they believe in using government for, that is the "right way anyway" and all other people are either wrong, or should change their minds or follow along with this government system as they set it up.
They don't seem to have any concept of OTHER people with OTHER views having an equal say in policy where it involves the federal government.
That is the most I could figure out.
I believe it is because people have different "political beliefs"
and cannot understand or even perceive of each other's views as valid.
The same way atheist and Christians both think the other is wrong and need to be
overruled, this is happening with political beliefs in right to choose and right to health care.
I think it is due to people's sincere beliefs in being right and having no concept
that the other views are valid much less correct and equally included under law.
But others assume the "right to health care" advocates are intellectually dishonest;
they are wrong and trying to impose their way and they KNOW they are contradictory
but choose to overlook it.
From talking with people I DON'T think they are aware they are imposing or excluding
anyone. They truly believe their way is helping all people and objections are invalid.
What do you think?
Is it a conscious political choice to keep using media and political campaigns to
overrule the opposition?
Is it a lack of understanding that the opposition to ACA is based on valid points
and beliefs that are equally protected as their own beliefs?
Or is it "insanity" where people really do not have any sense, and are either emotionally, mentally, or legally incompetent to reason through these conflicts and resolve them?
Is it intentional or not?
And if not, is it just a difference in beliefs or is there a real mental imbalance going on?
why do prochoice advocates CAMPAIGN AGAINST the slightest regulation by government
on the choice of abortion, and demand to keep government OUT of private health decisions,
but the same prochoice activists believe in Singlepayer health care through government,
and denounce when OPPONENTS to ACA want "freedom of choice" in health care without imposing government fines and regulations?
He said it's because liberal Democrats have "lost their ever loving minds."
"They demand that federal government stay out of women's wombs,
but want to hand over "every cell of their body" to government programs."
I asked some prochoice friends.
Some admit they oppose ACA, but of those people, nobody but me is willing to push for reforms, and some are afraid of aligning with conservative opponents on a common goal of restoring free choice; they seem to have a bias against working with conservatives, but are content to let "those people" fight against this issue for them, and aren't helping by going along instead of opposing it.
Most of my friends do not perceive any responsibility or connection between "using public funds or public authority" and answering to the beliefs of other people who are equally represented. Any other views are treated as invalid, so these don't count in public policy.
Only theirs counts as public policy and should govern all the regulations and decisions?
There seems to be an assumption that whatever policies or plans they believe in using government for, that is the "right way anyway" and all other people are either wrong, or should change their minds or follow along with this government system as they set it up.
They don't seem to have any concept of OTHER people with OTHER views having an equal say in policy where it involves the federal government.
That is the most I could figure out.
I believe it is because people have different "political beliefs"
and cannot understand or even perceive of each other's views as valid.
The same way atheist and Christians both think the other is wrong and need to be
overruled, this is happening with political beliefs in right to choose and right to health care.
I think it is due to people's sincere beliefs in being right and having no concept
that the other views are valid much less correct and equally included under law.
But others assume the "right to health care" advocates are intellectually dishonest;
they are wrong and trying to impose their way and they KNOW they are contradictory
but choose to overlook it.
From talking with people I DON'T think they are aware they are imposing or excluding
anyone. They truly believe their way is helping all people and objections are invalid.
What do you think?
Is it a conscious political choice to keep using media and political campaigns to
overrule the opposition?
Is it a lack of understanding that the opposition to ACA is based on valid points
and beliefs that are equally protected as their own beliefs?
Or is it "insanity" where people really do not have any sense, and are either emotionally, mentally, or legally incompetent to reason through these conflicts and resolve them?
Is it intentional or not?
And if not, is it just a difference in beliefs or is there a real mental imbalance going on?
