Gigi and I had had a running conversation on the issue of loving children.
My stance is that no matter what the circumstance is, a parent must always love their offspring. They may not be able to take care of their offspring, as in the case of a mother who places her child for adoption.
But they must always look out for that child's welfare, including their emotional and spiritual welfare.
It makes no difference what the circumstances are, whether they were wanted or unwanted before the pregnancy. That child is completely dependent on the parents, and if they have issues that prevent them from being loving, they should address them so that they can better raise that child.
Apparently, requiring that parents love their children is a controversial belief among some left-wingers.
I asked Gigi, who doesn't like children: "If you did give birth, wouldn't you think it would be your moral obligation to love your child, notwithstanding your past feelings?"
Well, I got my answer: "I don’t think I can put it any more plainly: No."
So there you have it, folks.
Now, in all fairness, Gigi may not represent every radical feminist, not even every childless one.
However, I find it very revealing that Birth Pangs has published her so-called answer.
I guess they won't let someone else's welfare get in the way of their "empowerment".
Where have we heard that before?
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
