bookmark_borderThe difference between supporters and opponents of MAHA

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by MICHAEL BOSSTICK (@michaelbosstick)

The most important sentence in this post: “the ability to impose those same views on others.” The controversy about RFK (which shouldn’t exist, because everyone should unanimously support him) is a conflict between two groups, one of which believes that the products and services of big food, big pharma, and the medical industry are good for people’s health, and the other of which believes the opposite. But the biggest thing at issue here isn’t what is healthy and what is not. It’s whether individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health. Not only do RFK / MAHA opponents blindly follow the recommendations of the medical industry, but they believe that everyone else should be forced to do so as well. While RFK / MAHA supporters believe that every person should be able to make their own decisions.

And that’s what makes RFK’s critics morally wrong. Even more problematic than their erroneous beliefs about what is healthy, is their erroneous belief that they have the right to impose their own beliefs on others. The fact that it is morally wrong to require people to undergo a medical procedure shouldn’t be even remotely controversial. The right of people to make their own medical decisions should not be political.