Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:03:25 EDT
From:         "Fritz Block,
              LCF Summer President" <BD32%LAFAYACS.bitnet@LAFIBM.LAFAYETTE.EDU>
Subject:      A definition of f.v's?

> Fritz--
>
> 	Let me see if I've got this straight.  Family values entail the
> following:
>
> > Vetoing the Freedom of Choice Act,
> --> so there can be more families, whether or not the mother is capable of
> 	handling the responsibilities of raising a family

There won't necessarily be more families if this legislation is vetoed.
It'll mean less abortions because the parents don't prefer the gender of
the fetus, more time for the mother to consider her decision, abortions
earlier in the pregnancy, etc.  (This applies to some states more than
others; a few might not be affected at all.)

> > giving parents the right to choose
> > between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
> > choosing the latter),
> --> so there can be more families rooted in strong religious values (mostly
> 	chrisitan, let's face it) and have the rest of the country to pay for
> 	children to go to a school that is outside the taxpayer's faith

I agree with the first part of your statement and hope it comes to pass.
But the latter part isn't true.  There would be tax credits for those
who choose private schools to help them pay tuition.  There wouldn't be
government subsidy of private schools, so "the rest of the country"
wouldn't have to pay for it at all.

> > banning the distribution of condoms in public
> > schools,
> --> so there can be more children raising children, ergo, more families; and
> 	let's not forget more sexually transmitted diseases, more babies born
> 	with aids and other diseases, ergo, more dysfunctional families

Not demonstrable in the least.  There'd be less sanction and frankly,
*encouragement* of "safe" promiscuity, and likely less of the above in
the long run.

> > banning the Joe Camel advertising (which appeals to minors),
> --> so there can be more healthy families (this I agree on, loosely)
>
> > keeping the authority of parents over their children (except in cases of
> > abuse),
> --> so children can continue to be raised by their parents, regardless of the
> 	kind of parents they are (this ties back in with your proviso on abuse,
> 	which I would like to know)

If the parents ship their children to foster homes or orphanages when
they don't feel like raising them, jerking them back and forth, I consider that
abuse, and the parents should lose their legal rights as guardians of
of the children.  (There's a case like this pending.)  When they keep
them from attending school regularly, or they provide them with harmful
drugs, I consider that abuse too.  I'm sure you can think of situations
just as well as I.

> > and developing stricter FCC regulations, to name a few.
> --> so that families will watch a controlled media, so that families will be
> 	influenced correctly.

So that certain kinds of explicit programming is on during hours when
children are less likely to watch television, for example.

> 	This really isn't meant as a flame, but as reminder that "family
> values" can mean anything you want them to mean.  I mean, what does banning th
> "Joe Camel" ads have to do with the american family??  Where is the increased
> support for daycare?  What about better maternity leave?  What about better
> insurance coverage for families that have children?  Broader innoculation and
> immunization programs?  Restructuring the basic educational system so that
> _all_ children are taught the same things at the same time?  What about suppor
> for scholarships for college and other higher education?  What about financial
> assistance for families that have fallen on hard economic times?  (I'm not
> speaking of welfare, something different must be done.)

I agree with most of those; I wasn't claiming that my list was
exhaustible.


*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
* Fritz Block    "Love is not a ballad on the top ten chart            *
* bd32@lafayacs   Love is not a virus from cupid's dart                *
* 215-250-8031    Love is not a promise that you tear apart            *
* Lafayette Col.  Love is a commitment heart to heart" -- Larry Norman *
*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*