Contradictions in American Politics

There are many important, nuanced subjects filling current debates, but the sides of each debate too readily lock themselves into their own echo chambers. While each subject deserves thoughtful debate, when considering the apparent rationale of the two “traditional” political sides in the United States, there seem to be various logical contradictions: 

SIDE A

• 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). 

SIDE B

• 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.