Moral Contradictions

Monday, November 13, 2006

Real Family Values

Ethics Daily has an article about a Baptist in North Carolina who ran an improbable campaign against the incumbent Republican. Larry Kissell of Biscoe, NC, was not offered any national Democratic money, yet the race is still undecided.

I admire his definition of family values, especially after 12 years of Republicans only relegating their family values to election time.

"Our families deserve more than empty moral posturing from an incumbent that votes to reduce efforts to collect child support for struggling families, makes it more difficult to obtain student loans and goes out of his way to vote for torture," he said. "The hard working families of the 8th District and our nation deserve a commitment to education, economic opportunity, civil rights, personal freedoms and the safe, clean environment that we all want for our families.

"We've had enough of the nonsense from the incumbent aristocracy in D.C. that has proven they'd rather wedge us apart than bring us together. It's time for an honest debate on real family values."


Yes, family values such as protecting unborn babies is critical, but the definition of pro-life does not stop there. The goal of simply protecting life is unfulfilled when these children do not have health insurance, grow up in abusive homes, do not have access to adequate public schools, and are not educated about how to become productive members of society.

If the government is charged with protecting life, then it should be allowed to protect those who are born. We need more candidates like Kissell in both parties who live in the real world.

2 Comments:

  • Nathan,

    "The goal of simply protecting life is unfulfilled when these children do not have health insurance, grow up in abusive homes, do not have access to adequate public schools, and are not educated about how to become productive members of society."

    sigh yes, Amen. While I've never been the brightest bulb in the chandelier, even I can understand the truth in what you write. Maybe, just maybe the changes we've recently seen in D.C. indicate that Jane and John Q. Public have realized that no one in power was listening to them. Maybe - just maybe - Americans really do want their elected representatives to be truly 'pro-life' in the sense you describe.

    This is STILL the greatest nation ever to exist in human history. Are we waking to the realization that there's more to being "vulnerable and in need of protection" than just being unborn? What about the elderly? What about the maimed and wounded Veterans who have given themselves for us? (What about their families?) What about repentant convicts? What about kids that really don't want to be involved with street gangs? What about our Police and first responders who are so poorly paid, ill-equipped and under-staffed? I hope I'm just extending what you've said so well by saying "with the resources brought to bear - of which this truly great nation is capable - on behalf of all the 'vulnerable', we could example to the remainder of history what it means to be a nation that's truly 'pro-life'".

    Heaven grant us more like Mr. Kissell and Heaven grant us a vision that frees us from arrogance toward anyone who is vulnerable. Thank you, Nathan, for posting.

    By Blogger Tom, at Monday, November 13, 2006 8:54:00 PM  

  • Yes, and when those same "unborn" children must grow up and face such dehumanizing racism and gender prejudice, we must include justice in our definition of "pro-life". Thank the Lord for Mr. Kissell and his type.

    By Blogger Kathryn, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:59:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home