Yes, but not as part of a platform.

Everyone knows that a candidates platform is nothing but a pack of lies. I think most of the stuff that gets thrown about in an election these days is just distraction.

This is sure to get me eaten alive, but hey, here goes, example: Abortion.

What does any candidate who is against abortion propose to do with the unwanted abused children who are born to women who would rather see those children dead? Raise them himself? I seriously doubt it. And what measures does he plan to implement to help the children when they are brought into homes in which they are treated worse than animals or abused and murdered at the hands of their own mothers.

Now, I have to hand it to the Catholics who oppose abortion. They do have orphanages and adoption agencies. But a politician? He isn't going to do a damned thing except use the issue to look like he gives a shit when he in fact doesn't.

Personally, abortion is not a choice I would make for myself. AND I think it is wrong for others to make. Do I plan to take any of those kids who are forced to be born and suffer into my own home? Hell no. Ya know what. That is the reason you will not see Sunshine on a discussion board pontificating about abortion.

Women have been handling that aspect of their lives themselves for thousands of years.

Women also have been handling men who fuck around on them. It is a PERSONAL matter. I AM from the south and there are some things that people should be discrete about. This kind of shit makes us a laughing stock on the world scene.

__________________

I think some here miss the point of "family values" it is a continuation of marrying the 'religious right" to the republican party. Ronald Reagan was an astute enough politician, and may have been elected w/o the "moral majority" and other rw religious groups, but for many republican pols it was a way to get elected. Does anyone seriously believe GWB could have been elected w/o the very organized, but very small "religious right"? He barely won against 2 weak canidates. I have no desire to belittle anyone's values, I'd like to think I have some and have passed them on to my children. But, fact is that men and women have cheated since the dawn of humanity. But we really didn't hear to much about a pol's "family values" I would venture to guess since maybe WW1 until of late (early American politics were very dirty).

Pardon my cynisism but I see "family values" as a way to get the electorate motivated. Make people believe that the "family" is under attack, ect. I have friends and family members that claim to support the Republican party, who can't name a single issue other than abortion.

However, if a pol marches his family out as a sterling example of "family values" and preaches on about "character", and gets caught then he is "fair game", more so than a pol who makes no such claim and gets caught.

I doubt many republicans could get elected today on their positions outside of "family values". So I see it as a smokescreen.

Even though I understand why individuals want to point out the fallacy of "abstinence education", I do wish Bristol Palin could be left alone. But I'm not sure her mom desires the same.

Steve, I do see a diversity in your opinions, could you get rid of the damned fly

Define family.

__________________

In the context I am using here it would be the conventional family. Mom,Dad kids. But I am giving my understanding of "family values" as a political issue, not what I personally believe about family. I am also tying so called "family values" to the religious right