The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or Happiness, Meaning, Purpose

The Chelsea Handler Childless Woman Upset: Other Conservatives Wrongly Conflating Married Motherhood with Womanhood or with Happiness, Meaning, or Purpose

After entertainer Chelsea Handler uploaded (Link): a Tweet with a video of herself listing the numerous ways she enjoys life due to being childless – I didn’t see anything in the video mentioning abortion – a lot of other conservatives jumped to shame and scold Handler for being happy about being childless and publicly expressing that happiness.

Others have said that Handler had two or three abortions in the past. The fact that Handler previously had abortions does not change the substance of my problems with conservative reaction to Handler’s video.

I am pro-life, not pro-choice, so I don’t agree with Handler’s actions to terminate her pregnancies.

However, again, I don’t recall Handler’s “happy to be childless” video advocating abortion or mentioning anything about abortion.

I don’t think her video criticized or shamed women for being mothers or for wanting to be mothers.

The only possible, even remotely “anti motherhood” take away one can get from her video is that mothers – assuming they are good, non-abusive mothers – invest a lot of time in child-rearing, but Handler doesn’t frame it in an anti-motherhood way.

It’s Okay For Women to Be Childless at Any Age and to be Happy About Being Childless, Just Like It’s Okay For Mothers to Be Happy About Being Mothers

Handler was just showing ways she has more free time because she doesn’t have to participate in childcare – which is not the same thing as being “anti-motherhood,” or telling other women they are wrong to be mothers.

It’s perfectly fine for a woman to be single and childless and to be happy about it.

Women can and should find meaning and purpose apart from marriage and motherhood. It’s unhealthy for any person to wrap up all their happiness, meaning, or purpose into one identity, station of life, or role.

If you are a married mother, your children will grow up, move out, and seldom visit you once they’re gone. Your husband may develop dementia, abuse you, or cheat on you, so that you will be without emotional support or you will have to divorce him.
In all these situations, you will be left with yourself, by yourself, and god help you if you never forged purpose, identity, happiness, or meaning apart from a spouse and children.

There’s no reason to criticize or shame an adult, man or woman, for being single and childless and for being happy about it and posting about it.

My fellow conservatives often push motherhood (via podcasts, tweets, magazine articles, church sermons, blog posts, etc) to a loopy, creepy, fevered pitch, about how super awesome, fulfilling, and wonderful motherhood supposedly is – but goodness forbid a childless woman lists or publicizes the ways she’s happy with being childless – and do so without criticizing motherhood or mothers. That’s a huge double standard.

I also didn’t agree with Handler’s mockery of single women who choose to remain virgins until marriage or to remain chaste (I blogged about that (Link): here a few years ago).

Unfortunately, in the midst of criticizing Handler, a lot of conservatives today were conflating “womanhood” to married motherhood. 

However, a woman remains a woman regardless if she has a child or is infertile, childless, or childfree, or whether she wants to have children or not.

The Bizarre, Misguided Shaming of Single and Childless or Childfree Women by Pro-Lifer Abby Johnson – (Not All Single, Childless Women are Liberal, Pro-Choice Feminists)

The Bizarre, Misguided Shaming of Single and Childless or Childfree Women by Pro-Lifer Abby Johnson – (Not All Single, Childless Women are Liberal, Pro-Choice Feminists)

When I was on Twitter the other day, someone who I follow on Twitter commented on a Tweet by a lady calling herself Abby Johnson.

A reminder: I sometimes follow people on social media who I don’t fully agree with on all topics. I’m a conservative, but I follow some liberals and progressives, including women who call themselves “radical feminists.” A lot of those radical feminists are pro-choice; they support abortion, I do not.

Like me, most of those radical feminists do not support “sex work” (strip clubs, prostitution, etc), and they do not support transgender activism.

Here is how Abby Johnson is currently describing herself on her Twitter bio (@AbbyJohnson):

Planned Parenthood Director turned Pro-Life Advocate! CEO of @ATTWNministry
. Global Ambassador for @COL1972official
. Best selling author & speaker. Mama/Wife
— end Twitter bio —

I am sincerely glad to hear that Johnson flipped her opinion on abortion, that she went from being pro-choice to pro-life.

Johnson seems a bit familiar. I think I may have seen her interviewed on Christian television program “The 700 Club,” in one of their CBN news segments, or perhaps I saw her on Fox News at some point?

At any rate, I am dismayed by her Twitter feed. Unfortunately, she, like many of my other fellow conservatives, falsely equates motherhood and wifehood with womanhood. I corrected her on that under a few of her other tweets.

(I’m not sure if Johnson is a Christian or not, but from her tweets, I can see that she leans right – as I do – and she also is pro-life, does not support transgenderism. I too am pro-life, and I sure as heck do not support progressive transgenderism, ie, allowing biological men who say they are women into women’s prisons, women’s locker rooms and so forth).

Also like a lot of other conservatives, Johnson holds a lot of false stereotypes about secular, liberal feminists. Not all feminists support trans activism, are anti-men, anti-nuclear family, and so on. There are actually women feminists who are married mothers.

If you’ve followed my blog, you will already know that I am middle-aged, I am single by circumstance (not by choice – not that men or women who choose to be single should be criticized for that, either), I am a conservative, I am anti-progressive trans agenda, and I am pro-life.

I am not opposed to The Nuclear Family, parenthood, and marriage, but I am opposed to the deification of such by other conservatives.

(Yes, most conservatives have unfortunately turned “the family,” motherhood, fatherhood, and marriage into idols, and they frequently love to make negative assumptions about, and insult anyone, who isn’t married or who doesn’t have children).

Let’s look at some of Johnson’s tweets – here’s the first one that I saw the other day, because someone I followed on Twitter commented below it (link to her tweet):

So, what does Johnson do with conservative, pro-life, anti- leftist transgender activism, middle-aged never married women such as myself, who was a devout Christian for decades, who had expected to get married, never met the right guy, remained faithful to biblical sexual ethics – no sex outside of marriage, hence no pregnancies?

Why is Johnson lumping pro-life, conservative, single, childless women, such as myself, into the same group with progressive, pro-choice, pro-progressive- gender- ideology women? Which is what she’s doing, because she’s equating being a woman, and/or a decent, happy woman, with being married and a mother.

Johnson is unnecessarily insulting other pro-life, conservative women who never did marry, who may never marry, and who do not have children, and she’s doing this to score a few points against what she terms “radical feminists,” who she (like many of my other fellow conservatives) wrongly assume, are all man-hating, baby-hating, single women who are lonely, miserable Cat Ladies.

(The Cat Lady trope is very sexist and needs to die off already. I usually see men tossing this at women. It feels a little more gross to see a woman tossing this sexist stand-by at other women to insult them with.)

In trying to score points against radical feminists, many of whom are actually married with children (and possibly cats) of their own, Johnson creates collateral damage.

Meaning…
Not all conservative, anti-trans agenda, pro-life women are married, can get married, or want to get married. Not all conservative, anti-trans agenda, pro-life women have children, can have children, or want to have children.

Why is Abby Johnson throwing such conservative women under the bus? To get some cheap shots in at liberal, feminist, pro-choice women?

I’m a conservative, and while I do not agree with feminists (radical or otherwise) on every issue, I am not okay with Johnson (or other conservatives) shaming or insulting liberal or pro-choice women over their marital or parenting status, or that of mine or that of other conservative women.

I cannot imagine how Johnson hopes to change any pro-choice minds by carrying on like she is?

Dear Abby: “My Kids Never Call or Visit Me” – Your Adult Children Do Not Owe You Friendship and Won’t Visit You When You Are Elderly: Readjust Your Expectations, Parents

Dear Abby: “My Kids Never Call or Visit Me” – Your Adult Children Do Not Owe You Friendship and Won’t Visit You When You Are Elderly: Readjust Your Expectations, Parents

If you’re a childfree person, you know you’ve heard pro-parenthood people, usually parents themselves, ask a million times, “But who is going to take care of you when you get older?”

From what I’ve heard of people who work in nursing homes, the adult children of elderly people in nursing homes seldom to never go to visit them.

When I used to periodically visit my grandmother in a nursing home, as myself and other family would be sitting in the lobby waiting for a nurse to wheel my grandmother out to visit, other seniors would wheel up to myself or one of my aunts and start to cry.

These seniors would cry (I mean literally cry, with tears running down their faces), and they’d say, “I don’t like it here, I want to go home.”

The vibe is that these elderly people hated being in the nursing home (which is understandable; I felt so bad for these people), but they were apparently not getting many visits (if any at all) from their family members.

When one of my Aunts got into her 80s (by that time, her spouse had been dead for around ten or more years), she was living alone, her memory was going – she eventually had to move in with one of her adult sons.

But prior to that, for years and years, that Aunt was on her own. She’d phone my Dad (her brother in law) any time she needed help.

My Dad ended up doing things like driving that particular Aunt of mine to the hospital at 2:00 in the morning when she fell and broke a rib. She called him and asked him for help with that.

My Dad went to her home on another occasion to fix a leaking toilet. My Dad also mowed her lawn for her a few times.

My Aunt’s own own adult son, who lived much closer to her than my father did, was not stepping up to the plate. He only came into the picture when there was no other choice.

His Mom (my Aunt) eventually got fairly bad dementia, or whatever problem (her recall became terrible) – she also became more and more physically frail, and it became glaringly obvious she could no longer live alone.

Only then did the adult son step up and let her live in his house, something he should’ve done years prior.

Before that, my Dad, who was up there in age himself, was driving to her house, which was like a 40 minute commute each way, to run errands for her, drive her to doctor’s appointments, etc, whenever she’d phone for help.

In reading up on books and web pages on abuse and codependency, I kept seeing one boundary violation by parents who have this bogus expectation that their adult children owe them friendship – to keep them occupied when they’re lonely.

This is doubly true if the parent in question is widowed (the other spouse died), or if they’re in a lonely, loveless marriage.

These types of parents (usually the mother) actually expects that their adult children (usually a daughter) to wait on them hand and foot, eat lunch with them daily, to phone them daily to chit chat – to be their buddy, their confidant and their pal to keep loneliness at bay.

And that is not a fair or reasonable expectation for a parent to have. Psychologists write about this in their books, it’s not merely me informing you of this.

I also read an entire book about emotional incest by a psychologist, and, according to this book, a lot of parents actually begin looking to a young child of theirs to meet their emotional needs and their need for companionship and/or identity or purpose when their kid is a baby, toddler, pre-teen, or teen!

This sort of thing does not always start in the kid’s adulthood, in other words. For some kids, it begins when they’re a baby or small child.

If the parent leans on the child in that manner, according to the psychologist who treats the now-adult patients who were leaned on by a parent when they were a kid, it will create all sorts of problems for the child when he or she grows up.

If you’re a parent, you need to realize that it’s not your child’s responsibility or duty to provide you with companionship, regardless of your child’s age.

If you are lonely or bored, you need to get out of the house and make friends with people YOUR OWN AGE.

You should never, ever rely on a child of yours (whatever their age) to meet your need for friendship, nor should you share personal details with them, like divorce stress, or whatever.

Your child is not your mini-therapist at any age. Talk to an adult friend about your adult problems. Making friends as an adult is not easy, but you will be messing up your kid if you start sharing “adult” details and problems with them, especially if they are young.

Anyway, having children is NOT a guarantee that the children will regularly stay in touch with you as you age.

(Link): Dear Abby: My Kids Never Call or Visit Me

by Dear Abby
January 29, 2023

DEAR ABBY:
I am an active widower with five grown children. Although three of them live in the same city and two live in a city nearby, I haven’t heard from or seen them as often over the past few years as I would like.

I realized recently that I miss their company and I’d like them to call or see me more often.

Women Threaten to Go On Sex Strike In Protest Over SCOTUS Overturning Roe V Wade

Women Threaten to Go On Sex Strike In Protest Over SCOTUS Overturning Roe V Wade

So, it takes the overturn of Roe Vs Wade to get secular feminists (and probably some progressive religious ones) to think seriously about celibacy now? Are they for real?

I’m in my 50s, still haven’t had sex because I was waiting until marriage to have sex, never got married, so I’m still a virgin. I have a normal libido. There is no such thing as a “gifting of celibacy,” as so many Christians assume; God, if he exists, did not remove my libido.

I discussed in a previous post a couple years ago why I made the choice I did to sexually abstain, but I will repeat one reason of several from that post: I did not want to get pregnant out of wedlock.

Birth control is not totally effective, it costs to maintain, I didn’t want to see a doctor periodically to get check ups to get birth control, etc.

I realized years ago – even as far back as my teen years – that a possible outcome of consensual sex was pregnancy which I didn’t want to happen. I didn’t want to use abortion as birth control (I don’t believe in abortion).

I managed to live my life practicing sexual self control, and I expect others to be capable of the same.

Any time you have sex with another person, that is a choice you’re making. As I’ve said before, sex with another person is a luxury not a necessity.

Having sex is not a biological necessity for you to stay alive – you will continue to live even if you’re abstaining. You can enjoy life without sex with another person.

If you are a woman thinking you can get or keep a boyfriend by giving him sex, think again. That won’t work, and you’ll only attract manipulative, selfish men who don’t make for good boyfriends anyway.

I just find it ludicrous that now that Roe V Wade was overturned, that all these women (many of whom are probably self-identifying feminists who spent years promoting “sex positivity”) are willing to practice celibacy, probably for the first time.

I’ve been celibate my whole life. I never bought into the hedonistic sex messaging of feminists, not even when I was a teen in the 1980s or a college student in the 1990s.

A lot of the “sex positive” feminists always came across to me as though they are really infuriated that men get to have (in some regards) consequence- free sex but not women; some of these feminists assume that all women want to be just as gross and promiscuous as most men are.

Why on earth would it take limitations on abortion to get a woman to think twice about when to have sex, with whom, and so forth?

Abortion will not be out-lawed in all fifty states going forward. Currently, some states still permit abortion, while others still allow it but with more stipulations.

Things should never have gotten to this point in the first place.
Pro Choice feminists reassured all of us pro-lifers back years ago that abortions would be “safe but rare” if it were legalized, but now I see all these air-headed Gen Z or younger Millennial women screaming and yelling on social media about how “proud” they are that they had an abortion.

Some of them are acting like abortion getting limitations strips them of all birth control – were these sexually active young women not already on the pill, or making their boyfriends use condoms? Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.

Maybe the best things is to abstain and not have ANY sex with another person, unless and until you marry.

I’ve seen a lot of women in the past 30 years write in to advice columnists broken hearted because they wanted a meaningful, lasting, committed relationship but although they were having sex with men, they weren’t getting the marriage proposals they expected to get, as liberal feminists assured them that having free sex anywhere, at any time, with anyone was “empowering.”

But for a lot of women, all that casual sex, or whatever type of sex prior to marriage (outside of a loving, committed relationship), wasn’t fulfilling or empowering.

I just find it so hypocritical that after years and years of seeing so many people, whether secular feminists, or progressive Christians, mock the concept of sexual abstinence and celibacy (or staying a virgin until marriage)
– and yes, I’ve even seen conservative Baptist and evangelical Christians give up on defending purity until marriage –
to suddenly see all these women advocate for celibacy!

Where were all these bitches for the years I’ve been on this blog advocating for celibacy or virginity-until-marriage to at least be respected as a viable life choice for women (and men) instead of something to mock and ridicule?

A lot of you women out there now having conniption fits and screaming about having a Sex Strike should have given sexual abstinence an honest consideration YEARS AGO, prior to the overturn of Roe V Wade.

By the way, I am specifically talking about consensual sex.
Too many feminists have the dishonest tendency to conflate the topics of consensual sex with rape and then condemn any and all discussion of female (or male) sexual restraint as being cruel or victim-blaming.

Links About Pro Choice Women Going on Sex Strikes

(Link): Sex Strike! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling

June 25, 2022
By Emily Crane and  Irie Sentner

Big Apple abortion protesters were in support of a sex strike Saturday — as “abstinence” started trending on Twitter in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“If you’re a man who won’t get a vasectomy, even though it’s reversible, and you’re not out in the streets fighting for my rights, you do not deserve to have sex with me,” Brianna Campbell, a 24-year-old EMT, told The Post.

Caroline Healey, a 22-year-old event coordinator, also questioned why sex was more important than women’s rights.

“I think it’s absolutely valid for us to be withholding the Holy Grail that men seem to think is important,” she told The Post at an abortion protest in Manhattan’s Union Square.

…“If this world thinks that they can oppress women forever, then we close our legs.”

“The Family Sex” Show – Nude Sex Show For Children (as Young as Five) at Theater

 “The Family Sex” Show – Nude Sex Show For Children (as Young as Five) at Theater

Post Updated Below

Okay, then, the left and the right clearly have vastly different understandings of “Family Values.”

The right can sometimes be hypocrites and not abide by the standards they have in place, but at least the right has some normal, healthy, baseline standards on some sexual subjects.
(Where conservatives lack: conservatives need to be teaching boys and men that they are not entitled to sex from girls and women, and they need to be taught more often about consent.)

The left, though, just wants to normalize pedophilia and all manner of perversion and immorality across the board.

Progressives  want everyone to consent to EVERYTHING and never, ever judge, not even humans engaging in sex acts on children, teens, or with animals. They want to legalize incest, too.

I’d say that conservatives, (those on the right side of the political spectrum), would say allowing children to attend a stage play with lots of adult nudity and overly frank talk of sex acts would be inappropriate. Highly inappropriate. And they’d be correct on that.

(Link):  UK Theatre Company Staging “Family Sex Show,” Invites Children As Young As 5

April 9, 2022

A theatre company in the United Kingdom is facing backlash after announcing it was staging a production aimed at children as young as 5 which would feature full-frontal nudity and offer an “alternative to porn.”

ThisEgg, a production company run by Josie Dale-Jones, is set to put on The Family Sex Show at the Royal Theatre in Bath, United Kingdom this coming May. The show is being run as part of the Theatre’s “incubator program,” a creative center within the facility intended to support projects aimed at young people.

…“I’m sorry but I am going to say it. This reeks of grooming. I’m horrified… 5 year olds… this can’t go ahead,” one Twitter user wrote in reply to a post putting the production on blast by journalist Sonia Poulton.

Another user tweeted, “Can I please vote for bringing back shame, thanks!” in response to The Family Sex Show’s claim that it sought to “imagine a future where there is no shame.”

Many mothers and women’s rights activists took particular issue with what they called a “safeguarding nightmare.”

One user looked into the show’s claim about its appropriateness for children aged as young as 5, writing that the guidelines the show was pulling were from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) — a UK-based children’s charity.
— end excerpts —

(Link): When is sex not sex? When it’s agenda, by Corisande Pick

Excerpts:

… Parents thinking of taking their 5-year old to a show that explores “boundaries, pleasure, consent, queerness, sex…” and which ‘contains nakedness’, are invited to click through to see still photos of the performance.

Only there aren’t any. In their place, a message that they are not ready.

…By contrast, the Family Sex Show talks about “using pleasure to explore consent”.

If that means anything other than “try it and see if you like it” (a standard technique used to override a person’s boundaries), it means consent to the thing that might (or might not) “give pleasure” is already assumed. Because until the thing is actually occurring, the issue of pleasure (or its opposite) doesn’t arise.

It’s also a common trope, when sexual abuse is reported, to claim it wasn’t abuse if the victim enjoyed it (or appeared to, or if they were unable to indicate that they did not enjoy it). This puts the onus for stopping abuse on the victim.

… And now consider a family where abuse is already happening, or where a groomer is moving towards Child Sexual Abuse.

Taiwan’s Birth Rate Sinks to Alarming Low as Pampered Pets Replace Babies by Nicola Smith

Taiwan’s Birth Rate Sinks to Alarming Low as Pampered Pets Replace Babies

(Link): Taiwan’s birth rate sinks to alarming low as pampered pets replace babies

Excerpts:

by Nicola Smith
Feb 22, 2022

…Taiwan has long lived with the terrifying prospect of invasion by neighbouring China, but one of the biggest threats to its economic security and prosperity of its society lies from within – the lowest birth rates in the world.

…As young people struggle with low wages, unaffordable house prices and work pressures that create an unfriendly environment for families, a visible sign of the reluctance to have children is the stark rise in pet ownership.

In September 2020, analysts estimated the number of domestic pets – about 3 million – had surpassed the number of children under the age of 15. The sale of pet accessories had a parallel boom, and now on the streets of Taipei, prams are often more likely carry dogs than babies.

Parents Group Slams School Survey Asking Students How Often They Have Sex, if They’re Transgender

Parents Group Slams School Survey Asking Students How Often They Have Sex, if They’re Transgender

(Link): Parents Group Slams School Survey Asking Students How Often They Have Sex, if They’re Transgender

Excerpts:

by Ryan Foley
Nov 2021

A parent advocacy group is slamming the largest school district in Virginia for administering a voluntary survey that asks students personal questions about their sex lives.

Fairfax County Public Schools, located just outside Washington, D.C., allows students in grades 8, 10 and 12 to participate in a “Youth Survey,” which includes a section probing the minors about their sex lives and gender identity.

Vermont Now Requires Free Condoms in Public Middle and High Schools

Vermont Now Requires Free Condoms in Public Middle and High Schools

November 2021

(Link): Vermont Becomes First State to Require Access to Free Condoms in Public Middle and High Schools

The law was created to reduce unintended teen pregnancies and the transmission of STDs

(Link):  Vermont first state to require access to condoms in all secondary schools: reports

(Link): Vermont Now Requires Free Condoms in Public Middle and High Schools

By Samantha Ibrahim
Nov 10, 2021

The state of Vermont made history when it became the first to require all public middle and high schools to give students access to free condoms.

The law states that contraceptives must be “readily accessible” to students in grades 7 to 12 via school administrators and nurses.

Rep. Topper McFaun first introduced the bill and it was signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott in 2020. It recently completed rollout in schools, local station NBC News 5 reported.

Dumbfounded by Stepson’s ‘Humiliating’ Father’s Day Gift: ‘I Almost Cried’

Dumbfounded by Stepson’s ‘Humiliating’ Father’s Day Gift: ‘I Almost Cried’

Yet another example of why, if you get married, it’s best to NOT marry someone who has children from a previous relationship.

The stepson does sound rather thoughtless – but – the stepfather who wrote in asking for advice sounds as though he could be very sensitive.

Depending on how you look at it, it’s possible the stepfather is a little on the sensitive side, and the kid is not intending to be cruel. If someone in my family did this to my Dad when I was a kid, like myself or one of my siblings – as a kind of joke – I think my Dad either would’ve found such a gesture either really weird or he would’ve found it funny.

If the stepson didn’t mean to be malicious about this, I’d give the kid a break. But if he that giving a stinky sock to his stepdad would in any way upset his stepdad, this is not okay.

Again, this sort of thing makes you sit there and feel fortunate you never had a kid, and definitely makes you think, “I don’t want to date anyone who already has a kid.”

(Link): Dumbfounded by Stepson’s ‘Humiliating’ Father’s Day Gift: ‘I Almost Cried’

June 24, 2021
by Emerald Pellot

A man can’t seem to connect with his 16-year-old stepson, and it’s become truly upsetting.

He explained the situation on Reddit’s “Am I the A******” forum. Despite him putting in the effort, his stepson doesn’t seem interested in bonding. Whenever the teenager does give him attention, it usually turns out to be a prank. But on Father’s Day, the Reddit poster believes his stepson took the jokes too far.

Restaurant Banning “Loud” Kids Has Parents Outraged

Restaurant Banning “Loud” Kids Has Parents Outraged

Why are so many parents outraged over stuff like this? Nobody wants to hear your screaming baby or brat when they’re out at a movie or a restaurant.

When I was a kid, my parents did this thing called PARENTING, where if myself or my siblings began crying or throwing a temper tantrum, they’d carry us out of the establishment. My parents did not subject other adults to my or my siblings’ annoying kid behavior – why should today’s kids be any different?

Sorry, Christians, but parenthood does NOT make people more compassionate, giving, moral, or loving – as a matter of fact, parenthood seems to make some people even MORE selfish and demanding.

(Link): Restaurant Banning “Loud” Kids Has Parents Outraged

Excerpt:

May 14, 2018

By Alexandra Deabler, Fox News

A restaurant in California is making waves for its firm stance on children: Those crying or making loud noises are not allowed in the dining room.

Woman Sets Two Small Sons on Fire, Locks Them Inside, Goes To Her Mom’s House for Soup

Woman Sets Two Small Sons on Fire, Locks Them Inside, Goes To Her Mom’s House for Soup

Just look at how motherhood made this 29 year old mother of two – a three and five year old – so responsible, loving, giving, and godly!

She locked her two sons in a room after setting their beds on fire, which killed them. Then, the article says, she went over to her mother’s house for soup.

And yet, Christians, and some secular conservatives, demonize or scold women such as myself who never marry and never have children.

I’ve never had a kid, but do you know how many children I’ve burned alive in my lifetime? ZERO, that’s how many.

Do you know how many children I plan to burn alive in my life? ZERO, that’s how many.

(Link):  West Virginia mom accused of setting sons’ beds on fire before locking the door by T Cullen

A West Virginia woman accused of lighting her sons’ beds on fire before locking them in their room to die is due in court Thursday for her first hearing.

Molly Delgado was arrested last week and charged with the Jan. 24 death of her 3- and 5-year-old sons.

Authorities alleged she set her boys’ beds ablaze, locked the door to their room from the outside and left their mobile home, according (Link): to the Washington Post. She allegedly headed to her parents’ house for soup.

…George Harms, West Virginia’s assistant fire marshal, wrote in the complaint against Delgado that she admitted setting fire to each bed before leaving the home, according to media reports.

Her husband, Justin Delgado, (Link): was already asleep when the crazed mom allegedly set the fatal blazes, the Washington Post reported.

[Delgado tried to save the two boys but did not succeed]

Dad Admits Killing 3-Year-Old Daughter After She Suffered Sickening Sexual Abuse So Violent She Bled Into a Diaper – Parenthood Does Not Make Adults More Godly or Loving

Dad Admits Killing 3-Year-Old Daughter After She Suffered Sickening Sexual Abuse So Violent She Bled Into a Diaper

Link to the news story of the father who abused his daughter is farther below.

As I was just remarking in my post right before this one:

Many times, conservative Christians and my fellow social conservatives and right wingers like to insist that parenthood (and marriage) is necessary to ‘fix’ culture or to make people more mature, responsible, and godly.

Problem is, parenthood and marriage does not necessarily make anyone more mature, ethical, and so on, than someone who is single, who never marries, or who never has children.

On this blog, I have link after link (in (Link): other posts on the blog) showcasing numerous real-life examples of married people and/or parents who cheat on each other, abuse children, get arrested for child porn, for soliciting prostitutes, for murdering their spouses or kids, and on and on.

There is nothing intrinsic in the state of being married or being a parent that makes a person more likely to be responsible, mature, or loving. If that were so, Jesus Christ would not have said that humanity’s problem is sin (Jesus Christ did not cite being single and childless as the cause of problems in the world).

WARNING: STORY BELOW CONTAINS GRAPHIC CONTENT

(Link): Dad Admits Killing 3-Year-Old Daughter After She Suffered Sickening Sexual Abuse So Violent she Bled Into a Diaper

A father has admitted manslaughter over the death of his daughter, 3, after she suffered sexual abuse so violent she bled into a nappy [diaper].

Matthew Lee Williamson also ordered his flatmate to hide a bong before he phoned emergency services after he discovered Kyhesha-Lee Joughin dead in his home four years ago, a court heard.

Williamson has pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, Australia, on the basis he failed to provide medical treatment for the girl when he found her body in March 2013.

But he has denied physically or sexually abusing the child and blames his housemate, it was reported.