Their desire for children is a natural desire. It follows that a man would be involved in their lives....also nature.
Those two, a man and a woman, by nature will have children and raise them. What prevents the fulfillment of this natural desire by these women? I’m sure there’s a lot to do with personality, right man, personal commitment, etc., but one of the requirements is time. These women have given away the time of their lives to engage in the news industry, and they have no time for mothering.
In that regard, it’s a terrible thing for Laura Ingraham to take on a couple of adopted kids. I’m assuming there’s no man in her life, but I don’t really know if she’s married or not. If, however, there is not one, then she begins an enterprise in raising children in which she doesn’t have the time to devote to them, and the kids only receive a one-sided worldview, the female side. She is depriving them (son or daughter) of the male-sided view. (Research released by Family Research Council last week demonstrated the 4 times greater likelihood of young girls being lesbian who are raised without a Father.)
You can’t send the message to young boys or girls that MEN are not important or that WOMEN are not important. They are the ying and the yang of healthy growth in understanding relationships. Yingless or Yangless, and you have a child crippled to some degree.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. If you compare it to the lives of women WAY back in the day, they did the same if not more hours of work per day than today's career-minded woman. God blesses us with our mates when He sees fit and many times that is after a woman is of age and must enter the workforce to live. Without knowing specific details, such as choosing a career to the exclusion of marriage but still wanting a baby, I don't think they can be blamed for much just on the basis that they are older, single, and working. Huddy sounded like she MAY have put work first, but I know Laura did not. A few years ago, before Laura adopted her first, she was very publicly engaged, and spoke about it all the time on her radio show. Then in the spring she was diagnosed with breast cancer and began treatment. By the end of the summer suddenly the engagement was off. I seriously doubt it was Laura who broke off the engagement.
In that regard, it’s a terrible thing for Laura Ingraham to take on a couple of adopted kids. I’m assuming there’s no man in her life, but I don’t really know if she’s married or not.
I don't know if she's dating, but I know she isn't married.
If, however, there is not one, then she begins an enterprise in raising children in which she doesn’t have the time to devote to them, and the kids only receive a one-sided worldview, the female side. She is depriving them (son or daughter) of the male-sided view. (Research released by Family Research Council last week demonstrated the 4 times greater likelihood of young girls being lesbian who are raised without a Father.)
Again, I disagree that her not having the time is a valid argument since she puts in no more hours than many "housewives" throughout time. However, I agree that it is arguable that she is unwisely or unfairly choosing to deprive her children (one boy, one girl) of a known father figure in marriage (so far). If we assume that they both came from orphanages, with no stable mother OR father, is it better to say that she at least improved their status with the possibility of a father later being added, or that she was nevertheless selfish because of the chance that a couple might have adopted them? I don't know how to make a Biblical call on that one.
You can’t send the message to young boys or girls that MEN are not important or that WOMEN are not important. They are the ying and the yang of healthy growth in understanding relationships. Yingless or Yangless, and you have a child crippled to some degree.
I fully agree, but isn't it also true that still worse would be to be Yingless AND Yangless? :)