What Happened to Family Values?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: joe 6pack @ 09/06/2008 6:19:48 PM

    This is a joke? A liberal telling conservatives how to get votes? LOL!

  • Posted By: Obums @ 09/06/2008 5:53:23 PM

    Nothing happened to family values, its all about a 17 year old having a baby out of wedlock, when the republicans do that is okay, but when it happens in the inn city, it will become a sin that will never be forgiven by God, because God is on the republicans side. The rest of us are going to hell fire.

  • Posted By: brandonp @ 09/06/2008 5:10:46 PM

    It is too bad that this author's logic and moral reasoning is so twisted that it would take books to correct all the errors contained in this article. I'll try to address at least a couple errors. First, in the act of abortion, a mother/father kill their own child. That is as opposed to the nuclear family as it gets and it can never be said that it in any way supports the nuclear family this author refers to. How does one ever come to the conclusion that to destroy a member of a family supports it? This act of violence will have to be dealt with for the rest of that "family's" life (whatever family might be left at that point) and in many cases may be the breaking point for the family.
    Second, the author claims that Gov. Palin's (although likely in an effort to undercut her qualifications he leaves off the Governor part) pro-life purism is ethically flawed. Actually though, the only case he makes is that it is politically flawed. It is surprising that the author has morphed his article into complaining about someone stand up for moral principles when there may be political consequences...e.g. losing an election. He now apparently wants political officials who stand for something as long as it is politically expedient (guess he'll be voting for Obama). Pro-life purism is ethically sound....it believes life begins at conception, and therefore deserves protection from that point forward no matter the circumstances of its existence.

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 09/06/2008 5:33:01 PM

      Or,

      ''We had to destroy the village in order to save it''.

      Judging from his article,Jakes ''morality''comes in the form of a bottle of single-malt.

  • Posted By: David SanDiego @ 09/06/2008 5:06:46 PM

    Weisberg and his ilk dance all around the issue to distract and obscure their belief that babies are not human and therefore have no human rights. They are just hunks of fetal tissue. Weisberg's view is validated by the US Supreme Court, the final arbitor of right and wrong.

    Years ago the US Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans were not human and therefore have no human rights. They were just hunks of property.

    Perhaps right and wrong will change again. But not if Jacob Weisberg can prevent it.

  • Posted By: emmalulu @ 09/06/2008 4:40:33 PM

    cont...
    However, the fact that Sarah Palin and her family are supporting her (not her actions), and celebrating the life within her, serves to back up her political stance and system of beliefs. All life deserves to be respected, no matter how it came into being

  • Posted By: emmalulu @ 09/06/2008 4:33:33 PM

    to "Athanatsius"
    I think you are absolutely right! and while, yes, it does that they may never get anywhere in life, or be totally happy if they keep their child, it is a consequence of an action! And just because a school teaches only abstinence doesn't mean that children don't learn about the things they should know.
    the the parents

  • Posted By: Athanatsius @ 09/06/2008 4:01:22 PM

    Is the material success of a mother of greater value than the life of her unborn child? True, we need to prevent teen pregnancies, help teen mothers and encourage two parent families. But to elevate material success over the maxim "thou shalt not kill" is but another a symptom of our culture's rampant materialism. "A man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions."

  • Posted By: Athanatsius @ 09/06/2008 4:00:02 PM

    Is the material success of a mother of greater value than the life of her unborn child? True, we need to prevent teen pregnancies, help teen mothers and encourage two parent families. But to elevate material success over the maxim "thou shalt not kill" is but another a symptom of our culture's rampant materialism. "A man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions."

  • Posted By: Dallas Mike @ 09/06/2008 3:57:45 PM

    Excellent article...however the issue goes much deeper than just abortion. The same closed minded religious zealots who are against abortion also champion teaching abstenence opposed to actual sexual education. Ms Palin is lucky all she has to show for her failed teachings to her daughter is a grandchild. She very well could have a daughter with AIDS or Herpes.

  • Posted By: ylong @ 09/06/2008 3:46:16 PM

    Just because someone supports abortion, it does not mean that he or she necessarily supports partial birth abortions. I would have to say that most women know they are pregnant before the third trimester and have enough time to make a decision before that time comes. It would be wrong to support one extreme view (completely anti-abortion) because you disagree with the other extreme (partial birth abortion).

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse