Personal vs Political Beliefs

#27
#27
Sea Ray said:
Kuwait might see this differently. So would countries like Poland and Eastern Germany
Click to expand...

I'll give you the first Gulf War, the objective was accomplished. But What war did we fight after 1945 that involved Poland and East Germany?
 
#29
#29
I'm personally opposed to slavery, but I don't think the government should tell people what they can do with their property (as long as the taxes are up-to-date).

I'm personally opposed to domestic abuse and child abuse, but (see above argument).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#30
#30
SamRebel35 said:
I can't understand the crowd that says " I think abortion is taking a life, but I don't agree that the government should ban it". If it is taking a life, it is taking a life. Now, personally, I'm not sold on the idea that "life begins at conception" so I am not in favor, politically, of banning all abortions all the time with no consideration for what stage the pregnancy is. However, I recognize the difficulty of pinpointing a window in which "life begins". But life does begin at some point while the baby is in the uterus. Not in the birth canal and not seven days after it is born (cough cough California). For that reason, I think some abortion legal restrictions are required, and I lean towards them being fairly early in the pregnancy. I don't think it should be legal to take a life regardless of where the living is taking place (a womb, a crib, a crack house, under a bridge).
Click to expand...

Being religious, I believe life begins quite early, as God says he knew hte number of hairs on your head before you were born. However, also strving to be a proper christian, I believe it is my taask to speak about faith, not force it unwillfully on someone. Therefore, I do not have a good abortion answer beyond personally believing it is wrong. It is also difficult and unchristian to judge someone else for their beliefs, or situation, when I exercise the freedom of mine. My only way to view the argument is that someone will always be looking to have an abortion for their own personal reasons. As such, the black market is not a medically safe place for that to happen. So, what do you do? If you prescribe to the constitutional spearation of church and state, how do you approach abortion since in it's most basic state is a religious based opposition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, EasternVol and McDad
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
What are some of your personal beliefs you hold that are different than your political beliefs, if any?

Something where you believe X, but dont believe the government should be involved in X.

I am thinking the more right leaning you are the more differences you are going to have in the two.

I am personally 100% against abortion and think its killing someone. But politically I would not support a government/politician that took an outright ban to it. I think the government shouldnt be funding any of it (PP), or require insurance to cover it. But I think if an insurance wants to cover it they should be able to.

Personally I dont "believe" in gay marriage, in the biblical sense. But politically if a government recognizes marriage I think they have to recognize gay marriage. One way I look at this is "civil union" vs "marriage".

Does anyone have any inconsistencies that stick out to them? These were the first two I could think of, but there are probably more.
Click to expand...


The dividing line is whether you think the role of government is to get involved in these matters. That in turn is largely whether you believe that civil rights (ALL of them, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, not being forced to quarter soldiers in your home, etc.) have to be protected for the individual because you don't trust the majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#33
#33
GVF said:
Being religious, I believe life begins quite early, as God says he knew hte number of hairs on your head before you were born. However, also strving to be a proper christian, I believe it is my taask to speak about faith, not force it unwillfully on someone. Therefore, I do not have a good abortion answer beyond personally believing it is wrong. It is also difficult and unchristian to judge someone else for their beliefs, or situation, when I exercise the freedom of mine. My only way to view the argument is that someone will always be looking to have an abortion for their own personal reasons. As such, the black market is not a medically safe place for that to happen. So, what do you do? If you prescribe to the constitutional spearation of church and state, how do you approach abortion since in it's most basic state is a religious based opposition?
Click to expand...

I understand religious people are opposed to abortion more than non-religious, but that doesn't make the abortion debate a religious one. I think the argument is simple (not the same as easy). In order to be in favor of abortion, it means that you must either think that killing people is ok, or that the process of abortion is not killing a person. Almost every person on planet earth would agree that killing people is wrong. So that leaves us with, "abortion is not killing a person". That is where the debate hinges. And I think it is more appropriate to approach this question from a scientific perspective than a religious one. If the answer is, "Science has found that a person's life begins at "x" weeks, then it ought to be illegal to provide an abortion at any point after "x" weeks, since by that time, scientifically speaking, you will be killing a living person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF and creekdipper
#34
#34
My personal belief is both parties have become lords and ladies that tell us peasants they are looking out for us and tell us what we want to hear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom and McDad
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
The dividing line is whether you think the role of government is to get involved in these matters. That in turn is largely whether you believe that civil rights (ALL of them, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, not being forced to quarter soldiers in your home, etc.) have to be protected for the individual because you don't trust the majority.
Click to expand...
And what the government chooses to get involved in is head scratching. It is apparently NOT in the government’s interest to tell someone they can’t terminate their own unborn child (hey, it’s a PERSONAL decision, right); but they CAN get involved enough in my personal life to threaten a waiter with six months in prison for giving me a PLASTIC STRAW at a restaurant in California.
DBA8A28F-4CAC-44A2-AA7B-982E46C9AEB3.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#37
#37
OrangeTsar said:
And what the government chooses to get involved in is head scratching. It is apparently NOT in the government’s interest to tell someone they can’t terminate their own unborn child (hey, it’s a PERSONAL decision, right); but they CAN get involved enough in my personal life to threaten a waiter with six months in prison for giving me a PLASTIC STRAW at a restaurant in California.
View attachment 448378
Click to expand...


Yeah, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Yeah, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...
I mean the government thinks I am too stupid to decide what product I want my straws made from but that I am smart enough to decide to kill my own offspring. They decide the tiniest details of life are worthy of their “benevolent” coercion; but topics of the greatest moral implications are “meh”. Does that help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and lukeneyland
#39
#39
OrangeTsar said:
I mean the government thinks I am too stupid to decide what product I want my straws made from but that I am smart enough to decide to kill my own offspring. They decide the tiniest details of life are worthy of their “benevolent” coercion; but topics of the greatest moral implications are “meh”. Does that help?
Click to expand...


No as they are so dissimilar. Like, in every respect possible.
 
#40
#40
SamRebel35 said:
I understand religious people are opposed to abortion more than non-religious, but that doesn't make the abortion debate a religious one. I think the argument is simple (not the same as easy). In order to be in favor of abortion, it means that you must either think that killing people is ok, or that the process of abortion is not killing a person. Almost every person on planet earth would agree that killing people is wrong. So that leaves us with, "abortion is not killing a person". That is where the debate hinges. And I think it is more appropriate to approach this question from a scientific perspective than a religious one. If the answer is, "Science has found that a person's life begins at "x" weeks, then it ought to be illegal to provide an abortion at any point after "x" weeks, since by that time, scientifically speaking, you will be killing a living person.
Click to expand...
Well I believe killing is wrong, but self defense, including and up to killing someone, is acceptable. So in some cases I can see abortion, even past an X date as self defense. Now I take a much smaller window on that take than some will. But if there is appreciable risk to the moms life to carry to term I cant fault her for having an abortion. Again, I dont like it, and think women who choose to take that risk are the best humanity has to offer, but the ability to protect oneself is paramount to freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#41
#41
Personally against abortion, politically pro-choice until personhood.

Personally against drugs (minus alcohol and hallucinogens), politically for legalizing all drugs (minus antibiotics).

Personally against hookup culture, politically the government ought to have no involvement in the sex lives of citizens.

Personally against indentured servitude, politically the government ought to not interfere with free assembly.

Personally against firing people due to race, sex, gender, etc., politically the government ought to not interfere with free disassembly.

Personally against usury, politically the government ought to not interfere with free assembly.

Personally against suicide, politically the government has no right over citizens' own autonomy.

Personally for euthanasia, politically against the government forcing euthanasia or government laws against citizens engaging in euthanasia.

I can go on and on but you get the drift.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, Orangeslice13 and hog88
#42
#42
utvolpj said:
That govt limited spending to actual national defense? Funding Israeli defense is not us national defense
Click to expand...

In fairness, I think joint research projects into missile defense and cyber offense/defense are worthwhile investments. Other Israeli defense funding not so much.
 
#43
#43
LouderVol said:
What are some of your personal beliefs you hold that are different than your political beliefs, if any?

Something where you believe X, but dont believe the government should be involved in X.

I am thinking the more right leaning you are the more differences you are going to have in the two.

I am personally 100% against abortion and think its killing someone. But politically I would not support a government/politician that took an outright ban to it. I think the government shouldnt be funding any of it (PP), or require insurance to cover it. But I think if an insurance wants to cover it they should be able to.

Personally I dont "believe" in gay marriage, in the biblical sense. But politically if a government recognizes marriage I think they have to recognize gay marriage. One way I look at this is "civil union" vs "marriage".

Does anyone have any inconsistencies that stick out to them? These were the first two I could think of, but there are probably more.
Click to expand...

Sodomy marriage should not be recognized. It's a mockery of God. God. God judges nations that flagrantly go against God. The approval and praise of sodomy is completely against God's plan or design. I dont believe it's right and the gov should not support or praise it. Same with abortion, to suck baby's brains out is inhumane.
 
#44
#44
happy-go_vol said:
Sodomy marriage should not be recognized. It's a mockery of God. God. God judges nations that flagrantly go against God. The approval and praise of sodomy is completely against God's plan or design. I dont believe it's right and the gov should not support or praise it. Same with abortion, to suck baby's brains out is inhumane.
Click to expand...
That's why I am not calling it marriage. I dont believe the government should recognize any religious ceremonies and assign tax, inheritance, benefits or others based on any religion. If the governments is doing it, it should be the same for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and lukeneyland
#45
#45
Here’s mine. I think some people deserve to be killed. For instance if they took Sandusky out tomorrow morning and hung him, I’d find that to be justice. However, I think the death penalty is too powerful of a device for any government to wield and it is too often applied to the innocent. For that reason I’m against it being codified in law but for it on a philosophical level.
 
#46
#46
GVF said:
Being religious, I believe life begins quite early, as God says he knew hte number of hairs on your head before you were born. However, also strving to be a proper christian, I believe it is my taask to speak about faith, not force it unwillfully on someone. Therefore, I do not have a good abortion answer beyond personally believing it is wrong. It is also difficult and unchristian to judge someone else for their beliefs, or situation, when I exercise the freedom of mine. My only way to view the argument is that someone will always be looking to have an abortion for their own personal reasons. As such, the black market is not a medically safe place for that to happen. So, what do you do? If you prescribe to the constitutional spearation of church and state, how do you approach abortion since in it's most basic state is a religious based opposition?
Click to expand...

Although there are obvious overlaps between religious and non-religious objections to abortion (and the same can be said for pro-abortion arguments), the issue can also be framed solely as being based upon science and reason if the main factors involve definitions of "life," "humanity," "personhood," etc. Even then, it becomes an issue of morality, which is simply a euphemism for belief in principles of right and wrong actions and what those are. There's no conflict involving "separation of church and state." Civil laws prohibit killing of innocent victims; so do religious laws. Likewise with theft, rape, fraud, etc. Every law we have is based upon someone's ideas of morality, and society does not hesitate to impose those morals upon everyone.

If objections to abortion are simply an obligatory "my religion (or religious leaders) tell me it's wrong even though I personally don't see it or agree," then one doesn't have much of an argument. Same for "personal" objections. A person might find body piercings or tattoos disgusting, but they don't have the moral authority to impose those personal preferences upon someone else. But when the Constitution speaks of protecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," those issues become individual rights. Note that the latter two become irrelevant if the first isn't protected.

I wish journalists would do their jobs and ask followup questions to politicians who say they are "personally opposed" to abortion. I've heard prominent many politicians including our current say that, but I can't ever recalled them being asked the simple, obvious followup: "Why?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
#48
#48
happy-go_vol said:
Sodomy marriage should not be recognized. It's a mockery of God. God. God judges nations that flagrantly go against God. The approval and praise of sodomy is completely against God's plan or design. I dont believe it's right and the gov should not support or praise it. Same with abortion, to suck baby's brains out is inhumane.
Click to expand...

Just out of morbid curiosity... what's your term for two women getting married?
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Yeah, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

His point is governement over reach on BS issues that have no effect for good on the general population other than unconstitutional control.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top