Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sperm Donor must pay Child Support for Lesbian Couple’s Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 26th, 2014

Week in Review

Proponents of same-sex marriage say there is no difference with it and traditional marriage.  And that same-sex couples can be parents just as traditional couples can.  There’s just the matter of getting a child.  As a same-sex couple cannot conceive a child.  But as long as women give up their unwanted babies for adoption instead of aborting them a same-sex couple should be able to adopt a child.  Or a lesbian couple could find a sperm donor (see Court: Marotta is a father, not merely a sperm donor by Steve Fry posted 1/22/2014 on cjonline).

A Topeka man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is the presumptive father to a baby one of the woman bore and is subject to paying child support, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled Wednesday.

In her written decision, District Court Judge Mary Mattivi said that because William Marotta and the same-sex couple failed to secure the services of a physician during the artificial insemination process, he wasn’t entitled to the same protections given other sperm donors under Kansas law…

Marotta contended he was only a sperm donor to a same-sex couple seeking a child, but the Kansas Department for Children and Families argued he is a father who owes child support to his daughter. The girl is 4 years old…

The Kansas Department for Children and Families filed the case in October 2012 seeking to have Marotta declared the father of a girl Schreiner bore in 2009.

Marotta opposed the action, saying he didn’t intend to be the child’s father, and that he had signed a contract waiving his parental rights and responsibilities while agreeing to donate sperm in a plastic cup to Schreiner and Angela Bauer, who was then her partner. Marotta contacted the women after they placed a Craigslist ad seeking a sperm donor.

The state has been seeking to have Marotta declared the child’s father so he can be responsible for about $6,000 in public assistance the state provided, as well as future child support.

This makes a good case against same-sex couple adoption.  For without a blood tie to the baby it is apparently easy to walk away from it.  Even if one made a commitment to raise a child together.  Like with this lesbian couple.  The partner to the mother of the baby left.  Without providing for that baby.  So the mother and baby became wards of the state.  Which is why the state went after the sperm donor for child support.  Even though he had an agreement with the lesbian couple that he would have no responsibility for their child.

There are strict guidelines for adopting a baby.  To make sure the child goes to a good home.  With parents who have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  Apparently there is no such requirement for the donation of sperm.  Which can place a child in a home with parents who do not have the financial wherewithal to raise a child.  At least it would appear so.

A marriage between a man and a woman is about children.  To conceive and bring children into the world.  In a partnership that facilitates the raising of children.  To give them a last name.  A stay-at-home mother gets added to her husband’s employer benefits.  So she can stay at home and work without pay while being covered by her working husband’s benefits.  Where a mother and a father can both raise their children.  Each teaching them what they uniquely can.  Giving them as complete a childhood as possible.  Tied forever to their children by blood.  This is what marriage is for.  Children.  All the employer benefits of marriage.  All the legal advantages of marriage.  All the tax advantages of marriage.  They’re all there for one reason.  To facilitate the raising of children.  So parents raise their children.  And not the state.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Birth Control and Abortion a factor in Premature Births

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2013

Week in Review

Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election in part because of the Republican ‘war on women’.  Which started when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney out of the blue if he wanted to take away women’s birth control.  The next thing we knew there were women who said college girls couldn’t afford their birth control and needed the state to buy it for them.  Then this snowballed into Republicans wanted their women barefoot and pregnant.  And were going to turn the hands of the clock back to 1950 for women everywhere if Mitt Romney won the election.  The left warned women that this was the worst thing that could happen to them.  For they knew what women wanted.  Birth control.  And abortion.  So their lives could revolve around their vaginas.  Becoming sexual objects.  To please a lot of different men.  While avoiding the disease of pregnancy.

As it turns out, though, avoiding the disease of pregnancy could have some side effects (see Premature baby steroids ‘may raise risk of ADHD’ by James Gallagher posted 11/22/2013 on BBC News Health).

Steroids given to help premature babies develop may also be slightly increasing the risk of mental health disorders, say researchers…

Being born too soon can lead to long-term health problems and the earlier the birth the greater the problems.

One immediate issue is the baby’s lungs being unprepared to breathe air. Steroids can help accelerate lung development.

However, the study by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Oulu in Finland showed the drugs may also be affecting the developing brain.

A premature baby has a lot more health risks than one carried to term.  We’re doing things after the birth to help these children.  Is there anything we can do to help before the birth.  Well, we can try to reduce the number of premature babies.  So what exactly causes babies to be born premature?  According to the Mayo Clinic (see Premature birth) there may be a lot of factors including but not limited to the following.  Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or using illicit drugs.  Some infections, particularly of the amniotic fluid and lower genital tract.  Some chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.  Multiple miscarriages or abortions.

There are other risks.  But what’s interesting about these risks is that they grow greater with age.  A married woman having her children in her twenties will have smoked fewer cigarettes, drank less alcohol and used fewer illicit drugs than a woman in her thirties or forties.  She will have had a less active sex life which will reduce the number of infections in her lower genital tract.  She will be less likely to have high blood pressure or diabetes than a woman 10-20 years older than her.  And she may have fewer abortions than a woman who waits until she is in her forties to start her family.  For these reasons women having a baby when they are over 35 have a greater risk of having a premature birth.

Whenever there is another gun death the left says we need new gun control legislation.  To take guns away from law-abiding gun owners.  Even if it saves just one life.  Well, we can have more healthy babies if women choose to get married and start their families while in their twenties.  For it is what’s best for the children.  Instead of trying to have a career first and then start a family later in life.  And perhaps more would if the left wasn’t telling women that a woman should be strong, independent, enjoy her sexuality and use free birth control and abortion to avoid what they call the disease of pregnancy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ideal Age to have Children depends if you do What is Best for You or Your Child

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

If someone sees a pregnant woman smoking or drinking coffee they will give her a stern lecture.  Explaining what she is doing to her baby.  And telling her she must be more responsible now.  For it’s just not about her wants and desires now. She is bringing a new life into the world.  And she must do what’s best for her child.  Yet these same people will say being a single mom is perfectly fine.  Or waiting until she is 40 until she has her first child.  Or if she wants to have a late-term abortion that’s a decision that should only involve a woman and her doctor.  All of a sudden it’s no longer what’s best for the child but what’s best for the woman (see Survey Reveals the “Ideal Age” for Women to Have Children — and It’s Total Nonsense by Monica Bielanko, Babble.com, posted 11/13/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).

As Slate notes, according to a new Gallup poll, most Americans think that women should start having children by age 25…

Do you know what I was doing at 25?

Dancing on bars after 4 too many shots of Jagermeister. Dating as many men as possible to figure out that guys who kick in your car door probably aren’t the marrying kind. Working my way to the top of the journalism food chain, first at FOX in Salt Lake City and later ABC in New York City, both of which involved 10-hour workdays. I was traveling. New York City, Mexico, London, Italy … you get the idea. I was grabbing myself a big ol’ handful of life whilst trying very hard not to create it, because that wouldn’t have been ideal. For me…

These kinds of surveys are so annoying, yet they seem to immediately go viral and do such a disservice to women out their living their lives and making choices based on what’s right for them – decisions that likely already go against the grain of what society/our parents/religion/TV/movies tell us. Decisions like our careers, delaying motherhood, choosing to be a single mom … but that’s exactly what’s wrong with any survey related to the ideal kind of parenting: there are no absolutes. You should do what is best for your circumstances; breastfeed/don’t breastfeed, let your kid cry it out/pick him up every time he sniffles, feed him gluten/don’t fee him gluten … WHATEVER.

Ideal for me was waiting until I was in my 30s. For you, it might mean getting married out of high school and starting a family. For someone else it might mean never having kids. The ideal age to have a child is the age you finally decide you’re emotionally and financially ready to have a child.

Again, it’s all about what is best for the woman.  Not her child.

When I was in the 7th grade the school counselor came to my class and asked a boy in that class to come with her.  Why?  She was there to tell him that his mother had died.  The next few years I sweated bullets whenever someone came to my classroom looking for someone to talk to. 

A few years later my sister told me about a coworker who took his family on vacation.  That vacation included a visit to a National Military Park.  His two young sons (5 and 7 or there abouts) were excited.  For they were going to see men in period uniforms firing real muskets.  As they ran up a hill with their father their father suffered a massive heart attack and died.  Right in front of them.  My father had just started medication for high blood pressure.  Soon thereafter I went on a family vacation.  And sweated bullets every time there was a steep hill or multiple flights of stairs to climb.

Losing a parent is devastating to a child.  And it’s not what is best for a child.  What is best are healthy parents.  Fathers that can throw the football around with kids.  And run up hills with them without dying.  The greatest sight for most children?  Coming home from school and seeing their mother waiting for them at the door (not seeing her rush in to pick up her pain-in-the-ass at daycare that made her leave work before she wanted to).   This is what’s best for children.  Loving, healthy parents.  And the longer you wait to have your children the greater the odds a child may lose a parent during childhood.  Because as we age the odds of a parent dying from cancer, heart disease, lupus, etc., grow.

Also, the longer we wait to start our families the older our own parents get.  So instead of having grandparents around to help young parents older parents may be raising young children while caring for their parents, too.  The next best thing to having healthy parents is having a healthy Mee-Maw and Pop-Pop to spoil a child.  Not for a child to watch their Mee-Maw or pop-pop die slowly.

So what’s the ideal age to have children?  It depends.  If you do what’s best for your child probably when parents are under 30.  If you do what’s best for you probably later in life.  So your little pains-in-the-ass don’t cramp your style.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Woman violates Chinese Regulations by being Pregnant so State aborts her Baby

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 16th, 2012

Week in Review

Your chances of surviving childhood depends a lot on where you were born.  And whether regulations will permit you to be born (see Late-stage abortion was ‘serious violation’ by Ma Lie in Xi’an posted 6/15/2012 on China Daily).

The family planning authority in Shaanxi province said on Thursday it will show no tolerance to officials who committed a “serious violation” by performing an abortion on a woman seven months pregnant.

An investigation team was sent to Zhenping county this week after images widely circulated online of Feng Jianmei, 23, lying in a hospital bed next to her dead baby girl…

“I was working in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region and received a text message from (a family planning official) saying that if I did not hand over 40,000 yuan ($6,300) to the government my wife would have to abort our child,” said Deng, showing the message, which he had stored on his cell phone.

When asked about the message by China Daily, the official denied sending it, claiming it was a fake and saying he had never requested money from Deng.

Can you imagine anything worse than this?  Bartering a human life for money?

The county’s population and family planning commission denied Feng was forced to have an abortion, saying the operation was performed because she was in breach of regulations and that she had given her consent.

Under the rules, couples in which both husband and wife have rural hukou, or household registration, can have a second child once their first reaches the age of 5. Deng and Feng have a 5-year-old daughter.

However, Feng was born in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region and has no rural hukou in Zhenping, so the couple were not eligible for a second child, Ding Hongxia, an official with the county’s family planning commission, said on Wednesday.

Except, perhaps, this.  Baby aborted because she violated regulations.  Tough people, the Chinese.  They take their regulations seriously.  And will stop at nothing to enforce them.  Even if a baby has been carried to 7 months.  Even pro-life people in the U.S. must feel uneasy about this.

In Sub-Saharan Africa a kid has to beat childhood disease, hunger, war and the occasional genocide to survive.  In China the greatest problem a child has to overcome is being born.  Who would have thought a child has a better chance of surviving childhood in Sub-Saharan Africa than in China?

Interestingly the Left feels more pity for the children in Sub-Saharan Africa than they do for those not born in China.  This is, of course, because they’re pro-choice.  And in their state-planning ways part of them admires the Chinese.  For in an economy where they want the state to run as much as possible abortion is a good way to reign in government expenditures.  It’s sort of like in the movie The China Syndrome at the end.  When Jack Godell locked himself inside the control room of the reactor.  He reduced the output of the dangerous reactor but he did not shut it down completely.  For he said with the reactor on he had power.  With it off he had no power.  It’s the same with the Left.  They like abortion to reduce government expenditures.  But they don’t want to get rid of everyone that might be born into the dependent class of government.  Because then they would lose their power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Court orders Spanish Doctor to pay Child Care after Botched Abortion allows Baby to be Born

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 26th, 2012

Week in Review

An interesting court case in Spain places the responsibility of a child not on the parents who conceived the child.  But on the doctor who failed to abort the child.  Odd.  For in the birth of that child the doctor is only an accessory after the fact of coitus (see Spanish doctor ordered to pay for upkeep of child after failed abortion by Giles Tremlett posted 5/25/2012 on The Guardian).

A Spanish doctor has been ordered to pay for the upkeep of a child after a failed abortion operation meant the boy’s mother was obliged to see her pregnancy through to the end…

The boy was born in October 2010, six months after his mother had gone for an abortion at the city’s Emece clinic. The operation had been performed when the mother was almost seven weeks pregnant. The doctor told her two weeks later that a scan proved she was no longer pregnant…

She did not return to the clinic for three months, and only after becoming convinced she must have become pregnant by mistake once more.

A fresh scan revealed, however, that this was the same pregnancy. She was already into her sixth month and past the 22-week limit for abortions in Spain. “I sought advice and was told that it would be a crime to abort at that stage,” she said.

The woman, who had hidden her pregnancy from her family out of fear at their reaction, was forced to confront her parents with the news. She and the child now live with them. Despite the fact that a suction technique had been used to try to remove the embryo, the boy was born healthy.

The mother sued the doctor for damages, with the court awarding her €150,000 (£120,000). It also decided the doctor and his insurer should pay maintenance of €978 a month for 25 years, or a further €293,000.

“I am living off my parents now, and it shouldn’t be like that,” the mother said…

“I am OK now, because I have had to accept things. There is no other option. I’m happy with my son,” she said. “When I have to explain all this to him, I’ll try to make sure that he feels OK about it. It was back then that he was not wanted, not now.”

I have one question.  Where’s the father?  Why isn’t he paying child support for his child?  I can understand the penalty for the botched abortion but child support?  The doctor didn’t make that baby.  He only failed to abort it.

Okay to abort within 22 weeks.  But a crime to abort after 22 weeks.  Okay at 5 months.  But not at 6 months.  Makes you scratch your head and think about the argument over when life begins.  At conception?  Or after 22 weeks.  Sounds rather arbitrary, 22 weeks.  Especially when you can hear a heartbeat at 8 weeks.

You hear some people joke about not being a planned baby.  About being an accident.  I imagine if one thinks about that too much it could make one question one’s purpose in life.  And question how much of an unwanted burden one was on one’s parents.  But surviving an abortion?  I don’t think that’s something a person should ever learn.  What possible good could come from that?  If mother and child bond and grow up loving each other why take a chance on ruining that?  It’s bad enough the mother has to live with this memory.  The child doesn’t.  In time perhaps the mother will feel it unnecessary to explain this unpleasant fact about his prenatal life.

But once again, where’s the father?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Despite Strict Abortion Laws some UK Doctors provided Abortions for Women who didn’t Like the Sex of their Fetus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2012

Week in Review

The UK has law governing abortion.  Unlike the US.  Who has no law on the books.  Well, there were many laws on the books in the several states.  But Roe v. Wade made these moot.  Perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court ruling of all time.  And what many call legislating from the bench.  For this decision didn’t interpret law.  It made new law.  For there was no law on the federal register to interpret.  And that’s how abortions became legal in the United States.  Whereas the UK actually debated the issue.  And used their legislative body to write it into low.  A novel use of the legislature.  Legislating.

Roe v. Wade was based on an abortion that never was.  The ‘Jane Roe’ in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey.  Who had her baby and gave it up for adoption.  Converted to Catholicism in later life.  And became pro-life.  She regrets her part in Roe v. Wade.  And now works to overturn that decision.  The only ‘law’ on the books for abortion in America.  Granting full access to abortion without any legislative debate whatsoever.  Which they probably didn’t want.  For they did have that debate in the UK.  And their law placed some restrictions on abortion (see Abortion forms being ‘pre-signed’ by Press Association posted 3/23/2012 on the guardian).

Spot checks at more than 250 abortion clinics this week found evidence of blank forms being signed in anticipation of patients seeking a termination.

The law states that, except in emergencies, two doctors must agree for a woman to have an abortion.

Although doctors do not have to see the woman in person, they must certify that they are aware of her circumstances and why she wants to go ahead with the procedure…

The news comes after a Daily Telegraph investigation last month uncovered allegations that doctors at three clinics had agreed to terminations based on the sex of the baby.

The General Medical Council (GMC) has suspended or placed restrictions on these doctors and the claims are being investigated by the Metropolitan police, Greater Manchester police and West Midlands police…

In the UK, abortions are allowed on certain grounds, including that continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman’s life, physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy, continuing would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman’s existing children and there is a real risk the child would have a serious physical or mental disability.

Apparently China isn’t the only nation that has aborted a pregnancy based on the sex of their baby.  This is perhaps the greatest concern to those on the pro-life side of the argument.  This selective breeding.  Just how far will people go in making their decisions in terminating their pregnancies?  An identified birth defect?  The sex of the baby?  The color of their hair (some kids pick on redheads in school).  If the fetus shows an obesity gene?  A short gene?  A premature bald gene?  An ugly gene?  A homosexual gene?  Just how far will parents go to have ‘perfect’ children?

Even an atheist has to admit this is getting too much like playing God.  A lot of women making these decisions are not in the best frame of mind.  A lot of them are young, too.  Who will have a lifetime ahead of them to think about this decision.  Which is why the British require counseling.  Because some women may change their mind.  Like Norma McCorvey did.  And if you do that would be a terrible thing to have to live with.

Often when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy the choice is to destroy a women’s life now by having a baby that she is ill-prepared to raise.  Or ruin her life later as she dwells on what she did when she was ill-prepared to raise a child.  Some may be burdened by this in later life.  Some may not.  But most would agree that they would much rather not ever be in the position to have to make this decision. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT109: “Liberals attack marriage and motherhood because their narcissism prevents them from doing either well.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Institution of Marriage is the Original Synergy where the Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts

A bird’s life is not an easy one.  They have to suffer through horrible storms.  Struggle to find food during the winter.  Stay on guard at all times lest some cat eats them.  They have to build a nest every spring to lay their eggs in.  And raise their babies.  Find food for them.  Protect them.  Then teach them how to be a bird.  And kick them out of the nest so they learn how to use their wings.  As they fly off into the cruel world to start their own short and hard lives.  Leaving the mothers to do it all over again next year.

It’s not quite the same for humans.  They don’t grow up so fast.  And require a whole lot more nurturing.  For the human baby is about the most helpless of all babies in the animal kingdom.  Requiring far more care and teaching before they can go off on their own.  And live their own lives.  Where the bird takes a few months it takes the human about 18 years.  So raising children is a bit different.  And a bit more involved.  Requiring a lot more effort and work on the part of the parents.

Enter the institution of marriage.  The most basic division of labor.  A man and a woman join in marriage to raise children.  The original synergy.  Where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  From the most basic biological level.  (The woman has eggs but cannot create life without fertilization.  A man has fertilization but cannot create life with eggs.)  To financial.  (A woman cannot work when bringing new life into the world.  So the father works to pay the bills and provide a home for the new life.)  To parenting.  (Men and women are different and bring different skills to parenting.  This diversity makes children better adapted to enter the world.)

Liberals are more likely to abort their Babies and Divorce as they are too Competitive and Aggressive to arrest their Alpha Desires

Raising children isn’t easy.  Both mother and father have to make great sacrifices in their personal lives for their children.  And to support each other.  Which means parents have to love their children and each other more than they love themselves.  Which is why narcissists make poor spouses.  And poor parents.  Because they can’t sacrifice enough of their self-love to be a good spouse.  Or a good parent.

Liberals are narcissists.  They believe in big government.  As long as they run it.  Because they think they are smarter than everyone else.  And should tell everyone else how to live their lives.  Atheists tend to be liberals.  (Not all for the followers of Ayn Rand are typically atheists, too.)  Because they refuse to live in a world where there is a higher power than theirs.  Celebrities tend to be liberals because they yearn for the fawning adulation of their fans.  College professors tend to be liberals because they enjoy the fawning veneration of their students.  Artists tend to be liberals for the fawning admiration of their fans.  Women advancing in the corporate or political world tend to be liberals because they love to bask in the self-satisfaction of making it ‘in a man’s world’.  And the accolades that go with it.  Further stroking their already huge egos.  You see, everything a liberal does is to feed their narcissism.  Everything is about them.  And getting married or having kids isn’t.  Which is why they can pursue excellence in all other endeavors but these.

Liberals are alpha males.  In a non-physical, narcissistic way.  Even the women.  Where the liberal feminist wants to be everything a man can be.  Everything is a competition.  To prove that they are better than everyone else.  And to show everyone that they’ve made it.  Especially to those who have bested them earlier in their lives.  From the bullies in school.  To the boys and girls who wouldn’t date them.  To the talented geeks that went on to be entrepreneurial geniuses.  And billionaires.  To the men who have always had the best careers.  And the best stuff.  But now it’s payback time.  Where the expression ‘the best revenge is living well’ really means something.  Which explains why liberals are more likely to abort their babies.  And have their marriages end in divorce.  They are just too competitive and too aggressive to arrest their alpha desires.  To knock that chip off of their shoulders.  To let go of their anger.  Their ambition.  Too consumed with their own existence to share their only love (self-love) with a spouse.  Or a child.  In their all out pursuit of liberal happiness.  Affirmation.  That they do matter.  That they have a purpose.  That they are special.

Liberals think Happily Married Women raising Families are just too Stupid to Know that they should be as Miserable as they Are

Liberals want to get married.  And have children.  But on their terms.  Where it doesn’t interfere with their lives.  Or change them.  Or inconvenience them.  They enter into these arrangements with the idea that they will remain the center of the universe. 

Celebrities are always getting married.  And having children.  Which proves that they like the institution of marriage.  And children.  But their marriages often end in divorce.  And their subsequent custody battles are often ugly.  And aired in public.  Which is why liberals condemn the stay-at-home mother.  Who gives up on being everything she could be.  To be the only thing that liberals can’t be.  Happily married and raising a family. 

And that’s what really bugs them.  They’re happy.  To a liberal this is just not fair.  They’re the ones who should be happy.  Because they matter.  They’re special.  They have the nicer stuff.  And what really gets in their craw is that these happily married women raising families are just too stupid to know that they should be as miserable as they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,