Is it the idea that a woman carrying a new life inside of her might be more squeamish about giving orders that would end thousands, if not millions, of other lives? Hopefully any leader would take that sort of decision just as seriously as a pregnant woman might.
Or perhaps you are afraid that the hormones of pregnancy might affect her judgment? “
Yes all of the above and many others are serious considerations. Keep in mind many women who are pregnant have to leave work during pregnancy. You don't get to take off from work if you are president of the United States. The pressure and responsibility are there 24/7. Think of the pressure on a president during a time of war or in the case of an attack on the US like 911! The potential complications are extensive.
It makes no difference that Michelle is 54, pregnancy is still a very real possibility, even more so with Sarah.
I have kids and of course have seen first hand how drastic the effects are on a womans body and mind.
I'm really not taking any side here as I really just thought of this myself. After thinking about it for a few minutes I have to say my initial thoughts are that this is a frightening scenario. I definitely lean towards the “no way would I be comfortable with a pregnant president and the US under attack.
Like it our not, I think this is a potential deal breaker for any female candidate under the age of about 60. If Sarah or Michelle run it's only a matter of time before the lib media brings this up and the scary thing is that it will be a very legitimate concern for many voters, female or male.
So how does a female candidate under 60 demonstrate her fitness for the job? Does she have to provide evidence of her infertility, or have her tubes tied?