I can 100% appreciate your point, I just find it ironic because it is a very liberal argument.
What I mean by that is that the CRUX of liberalism is relativism. That rules are fluid to the point of being unnecessary or even bad.
One need not be a slave to philosophical dogma the realize that standards are still important. A desire to be “Christlike” has given this country truckloads of ideas, policies, and laws that are bad, bad news. Remember, is was committed CHRISTIANS that gave the most attractive veneer to socialism, especially in the 1800’s.
I guess I am going back to my original point which is that this is massive cognitive dissonance on Laura’s part.
Furthermore, I do believe this sends a VERY negative message about the need for fathers. Step outside of the circle and look at this situation from that view. If LAURA can do this...if LAURA thinks that a dad is not important, then why should I? I’ll just shack up...or better yet, I’ll just go to a sperm bank!
You REALLY think it is that far of a moral/intellectual leap ?
Laura has made her fortune as an icon of conservatives principles. She is who she is and is where she is because of what she is selling - and that is the superiority of the philosophy of conservatism. She has made traditional families (and by definition, fathers) a pillar of that philosophy, and then deliberately creates a non-traditional, fatherless home.
I am a married father. I am deeply involved in fatherhood / traditional family issues and I’m telling you this sets a bad example and makes it harder to push the case for traditional families.
I do see the dissonance—and I’m waiting to see if she chooses to explain her choice. Maybe she’ll just decide to chuck the whole radio/tv pundit thing and raise her child, the way George Lucas gave up movies (for a time) when he adopted his children as a single parent.
I do wonder how many young conservative girls will decide to pursue a career and then a couple of decades later adopt a toddler from a third world orphanage.