- Advocates choice while ignoring the choice of an unborn individual or those who would gladly adopt said child
- Opposes legislative mandates that restrict personal choice (e.g. abortion) while lauding legislative mandates that restrict personal choice (e.g. vaccination)
- Justifies the ethics of abortion while challenging the ethics of war, the death penalty, and/or the collateral damage of gun rights (e.g. mass shootings).
- Advocates the sacredness of life (e.g. an unborn child) while decrying public health measures designed to protect life (e.g. vaccination)
- Supports legislative mandates against personal choice (e.g. abortion) while protesting on behalf of personal choice when it comes to public health mandates (e.g. vaccinations)
- Justifies the ethics of war, the death penalty, and/or the necessity of gun rights, while seemingly ignoring the casualties and/or collateral damage of innocent lives (e.g. mass shootings).
There are probably more examples, but at a basic level these contradictions suggest that neither side can claim the moral high ground, and perhaps more importantly point toward the limitations of balancing politics and ethics.