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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Military Children (and Children of Single Mothers) suffer Mental Health Issues due to Absent Fathers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Boys love their fathers.  And it’s tough losing them.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music.  During the Roger Waters’ period.  Whose concept albums were shaped by his experience growing up without a father who died in World War II.  As the children of Britain grew up in a dearth of fathers following World War II.  As so many of their fathers died in the war.  Waters went on to great success.  But he suffered for his art.  As all great artists do.  Who probably would have preferred to be happy instead of being a great artist.

The bond between child and parent is so strong that the parent doesn’t even have to die to affect the child.  Just periods of separation is enough to do damage (see Military deployments tied to teens’ depression by Kathleen Raven posted 11/29/2013 on Reuters).

Adolescents who experience the deployment of a family member in the U.S. military may face an increased risk of depression, suggests a new study.

Ninth- and eleventh-grade students in California public schools with two or more deployment experiences over the past decade were 56 percent more likely to feel sad or hopeless compared with their non-military-family peers, the researchers found.

The same kids were 34 percent more likely to have suicidal thoughts.

So it would follow the more deployments (i.e., the less time the parent spends with their child) the more likely the increased risk of depression, feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts.  So the more time one parent stays away the less happy and the more frequent mental health issues a child suffers.   With the child no doubt suffering the most should that parent die in a combat zone.  Thus being removed from the child’s life forever.  Sad.  But intuitive.  For most probably didn’t need a study to tell them this.

The same can be said about single mothers.  And their children.  For it is the absence of one parent from their lives that reduces the quality of their lives.  Because that father isn’t there to toss the football around with him after school.  To attend a tea party with her favorite stuffed animals.  To be there to teach them what to do when they lose power during a thunderstorm.  And make them feel safe just by being there.

We take a lot of things Dad does—or did—for granted.  And the more time we spent with him the more we’re able to do the things he did when he’s no longer there to do them.  So the more time we have with Dad the stronger and more able we become.  The less time we have the less strong or able we become.  And if he’s not there at all it is like a child losing him in a military deployment.

The Democrats attack the Republicans and claim they have a war on women.  Because they don’t want to provide free birth control.  Abortion.  Or an expanding welfare state for single mothers.  The left really doesn’t want women to have children.  And if they do they want to help mothers raise their children without a father.  By having the state replace the father.  So women can remain free.  Pursue careers.  And not be condemned to stay-at-home motherhood.  The left does all of these things for women.  For it’s what is best for them.  Without ever considering what’s best for the child.  Two parents.  They will do studies to prove this if they can condemn the military for the effect it has on children.  But when it’s about women enjoying life to the fullest while treating pregnancy as a disease to avoid it’s a different story.  And for those women who become infected with pregnancy?  They don’t need a man in their life.  As long as there is the reassuring embrace of government to comfort her.

The Republicans don’t have a war on women.  But you could say that Democrats have a war on children.  As they always put a woman’s happiness over her child’s happiness.  For a child would rather grow up in a traditional family than be shuffled back and forth from daycare.  Just listen to some Pink Floyd music if you don’t believe that’s true.

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

A Father smokes Marijuana while his Baby Dies in Hot Parked Car

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2013

Week in Review

Every time someone dies from a gunshot the left screams we have to do something to get these guns out of the hands of people.  For if people didn’t have guns no one would die.  Because it’s not people killing people with guns.  It’s the guns that are killing people.  And the people shooting the guns just happen to be there.

This is the logic on the left.  But yet when kids die in hot cars or because of the neglect of stoned parents they don’t say anything about getting rid of cars.  Or getting rid of drugs (see Hot Car Baby Death: ‘Joint-Smoking Dad’ Charged posted 8/30/2013 on Sky News).

A father has been accused of leaving his baby to suffocate in a parked car in temperatures of 100F, as he smoked cannabis in a sports bar…

It was thought Gray was distracted and forgot about the boy.

But Mr Thompson said police later came to suspect Gray was smoking cannabis with a work companion during the time his son was in the vehicle.

Outside temperatures were about 100 degrees, but interior car temperatures are frequently much higher.

Parents sometimes forget about a child in the back seat of a car.  Usually when there is a change in routine.  People soon forget in their busy life that today they have the child.  Then accidents happen.  And the Democrats are to blame.

The cost of the welfare state has made it hard for a single income to raise a family.  Which is why children are spending so much time in cars.  Getting shuttled between childcare and home.  Like laundry going to and from the cleaners.  Just another chore to tend to.  Because taxes are so high today that a parent can’t stay at home to raise their children.  They have to get back to work as soon as they can.

And it’s been the Democrats who have been for the decriminalization of marijuana.  For two reasons.  A lot the hippies from the Sixties who spent their time then getting high still like to light up to get high.  When they’re not busy writing the curriculum for our children’s schools.  And it’s a great way to get the youth vote.  By being everything a kid’s parents are not.  Sure, kid, sex and getting high are okay.  You vote for us and we’ll make sex and drugs a simpler part of your life.  But how many frizzled parents do we want out there getting high when they drive?  With their child in the back seat?  No.  Nothing good can come from making it easier to drive and smoke marijuana.

If it saves just one child then it’s worth doing.  That’s what they say about restrictions on gun ownership.  And if it’s good for guns than it must be good for marijuana.  It needs to be banned.  For the children.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Guns vs. Butter

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2013

Economics 101

When Children get their Allowance their Faces light up as they Think of all that Spending they’ll Do

Parents try to teach their kids to be responsible.  And to understand that they are not rock stars.  They can’t have “everything all the time.”  Because if you can you get bored.  And look for new ways to kill that boredom.  Like developing a coke habit.  (“There were lines on the mirror, lines on her face.”  Life in the Fast Lane.  The Eagles.)  Which is bad.  Very, very bad.  So this is where a weekly allowance comes in.  It teaches kids to be responsible.  And to budget their wants.  To make choices.  If they want more of one thing they learn they have to have less of another.  This is economic reality.  And the sooner they learn it the better off they will be.

So what does a kid want?  Food, candy, games, toys, comic books, going to the movies and consuming a lot of concession food and drinks.  And other stuff.  What does a parent want?  Their kids not to want so much of these things.  And not to whine.  Especially that.  They also want them to learn the importance of saving money.  To spend less and save more.  So later in life should they lose their job they will have savings to live on while they look for another job.  Without having to move back home.  So they may give a child an allowance of $100 a week.  Telling that child it’s for those things they want.  And for putting a little in the bank every week.  So they can have some money for later.  During a time they really need it.  And when the child gets that $100 his face lights up.  Thinking of all that spending he’s going to do.  While thinking nothing about saving.

Kids Allowance and Budget

The parent watches with proud satisfaction as their child budgets his wants.  For 5 weeks he pays for his school lunch.  Spends a fixed weekly amount on candy.  When he wanted to spend more on games, toys and comic books he cut back spending on movie night.  Even not going to the movies at all in Week 4 because he chose instead to buy an expensive game.  The parents are happy to see their child live within his budget.  But are disappointed that he spent all of his allowance without putting any of it in the bank.

With this Easy Credit he soon realizes that he can have Everything all the Time

Then the parents divorce.  The mother remarries.  The new stepdad really wants his stepson to like him.  While he is bitter about his parents’ divorce.  The stepdad keeps the same allowance structure in place.  But in a desperate attempt to get him to like him he is more than willing to make advances on his allowance.  Loaning money easily.  But charging interest.  To continue the lesson of responsibility.

Kids Allowance and Budget with Deficits

With easy credit and wanting more toys the stepson borrows money in Week 2.  $10.  And buys more games and toys.  Paying $1.10 for the allowance advance.  Liking the ability to buy more at the toy store he goes back for another loan in Week 3.  This time $20.  Paying $3.42 in total interest charges at the end of the week.  Losing the lesson of living on an allowance he goes back to borrow more.  This time $30.  Paying $7.10 in total interest.  With this easy credit he soon realizes that he can have everything all of the time.  And in Week 5 he borrows $40.  With his interest on the outstanding balance adding up to $12.28.  Which is almost enough to buy his school lunches for a week.

At the end of Week 5 he owes $100 in allowance advances.  Which he will have to eventually pay back.  Seeing how irresponsible the child got the stepdad refuses future allowance advances.  Upset the kid starts whining.  A lot.  Annoyed the stepdad calls in the loan.  He gives the child his $100 weekly allowance.  And then takes it back.  The child whines more.  For he can’t buy anything that week.  Not even school lunch.  Having to brown-bag it.  A peanut butter sandwich and an apple.  Making pizza day a living hell.  For he has no savings to live on during this difficult time.  As he was a spendthrift with his money.  Ignoring the sage advice of his parents to save for a rainy day.  So he suffers the most painful time of his life.  Extreme austerity for a week.

When they can’t reduce Defense Spending anymore they simply Borrow Money to keep Spending

This example is similar to how the federal government works.  The taxpayers are the kids.  And the stepdad are the politicians in the federal government trying to make taxpayers like them.  So they keep voting for them.  Only the politicians don’t want the people to learn to be responsible.  To budget their wants.  To understand that if they want more of one thing that they have to have less of another.  No.  They want them to believe they can have everything all of the time.  If only they vote for them.  How can they do this?  Unlike a parent the federal government can print money.  Making it the best stepdad in the world.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the federal government was to provide for a common defense.  After winning their Independence they couldn’t get the British to leave our soil.  Or prevent the Barbary pirates from capturing our merchant ships and selling our sailors into slavery.  The new federal government was to provide a military force to protect Americans.  The Founding Fathers wrote this into the Constitution.  What they didn’t write into it was all the social spending we see today.  Often at the expense of defense spending.  The great political debate of how to divvy up spending between defense and the social stuff we see today is the guns vs. butter debate.  Where strict constructionists wanting to keep spending per the intent of the Founding Fathers.  All guns and no butter.  The ‘butter’ being an issue for state governments.  While progressives and liberals want all butter and no guns.  Because they hate the military.  And think they can talk to our enemies and make them like us.  Most other people want something in between.  As shown by  this graph.

Gunds vs Butter

If you spend 80% on guns that only leaves 20% for butter.  If you spend 50% on guns that leaves 50% for butter.  If you only spend 20% on guns that leaves 80% for butter.  And so on.  Progressives and liberals want to move as far to the left on this graph as possible.  Because the farther left they go the more they please their stepchildren.  Who become accustomed to all that spending.  And show their appreciation by continuing to vote for their stepdad.  Of course they can’t reduce defense spending to 0% because there are people out there who hate us and want to hurt us.  So when they can’t reduce defense spending anymore they simply borrow money to keep spending.  So they can keep spoiling their stepchildren.  Whose faces light up when they think about all the spending they are going to do.  With the added benefit that they will never have to repay that spending.  Or learn economic reality.  Until, that is, the government gets so overextended they have to implement a little austerity of their own.  Only it won’t last a week like it did for that spoiled child.  Instead it will be more like it was in Greece.  It will last years.  And include some rioting.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mother sacrifices her Body to Shield her Children from their Collapsing House

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 10th, 2012

Week in Review

What is love?  Is it a racing heart beat when you’re with someone special?  A flushing of the cheeks from a kiss?  The automatic date on a Friday night that is mutually understood?  No.  It’s none of these things.  These are only emotions.  Feelings.  True love is sacrificing yourself in your love for others.  Like a soldier falling on a live hand grenade to save fellow soldiers.  A husband giving up his seat in a lifeboat and dying so his wife can live.  Or a mother willing to sacrifice everything to shield her children from a collapsing house (see Hero Mom, Stephanie Decker, Recounts Saving Kids From Tornado, Losing Legs by MATT GUTMAN posted 3/5/2012 on ABC News).

As the sky glowered black and Stephanie Decker felt the monster tornado begin to suck her house into its vortex, she knew it would not hold and she had no choice but to shield her two young kids with her own body. She lost her legs in the process…

She was determined to keep her kids safe, and her actions saved them, but at a steep cost. Not only was her home lost, but both of her legs had to be amputated late Friday — one just below the knee, the other just above it…

Both her legs were smashed. She’d also suffered a punctured lung.

Her children, however, were unscathed…

In the wake of her injuries, a benefit fund has been set up for Stephanie Decker at Fifth Third Bank, 392 S Indiana Ave, Sellersburg, IN, 47172.

The strongest love is that love between mother and child.  A mother will do anything to protect her children.  And won’t stop fighting until she has given everything that she can give.  Like Stephanie Decker.  Hero.  Mother.  So think about this hero the next time you’re about to criticize a woman for being just a mother.  For there is no higher calling.  To raise a family.  And to experience this pure love.  A love so strong that a mother will sacrifice everything without hesitation for that love.  Something no career can match.  Unless you’re falling on a live hand grenade to save your fellow soldiers.

May God help Mrs. Decker and her family through this most difficult time.  And may her benefit fund overflow with generosity.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,