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? :)
In the case of Ingraham, we’re dealing with the super-successful. Their time demands are different, and their ability to have the children working alongside them, as in past farm families. I think I have some idea what you do for a living, but I’m pretty sure that a 3 hour radio prep each day, and appearances, speeches, and TV sub-hosting would consume nearly 20 hours a day. I’m betting it really runs these people down. O’Reilly had to back out of it. Hannity is a wonder, and Beck already was an addictive personality....now he’s just addicted to work.
Ingraham has the choice to raise them fatherless, and therefore, it is better for her to wait. Is it better to have one parent than no parents? In the case of tragic death of one parent, that’s sometimes unavoidable, but the position of the deceased still influences to some degree.
There is no tragic reason for Ingraham to take children given her schedule.
They’ll be with nannies anyway.